THE CLAIMS 



EPISCOPAL BISHOPS," 



EXAMINED IN 



A SERIES OF LETTERS, 

ADDRESSED TO THE REV. S. A. 3ICC0SKHY, D. D., BISHOP OP THE 
rilOTESTA.NT EPISCOPAL CllUrvCII OF MICHIGAN. 



u 

BY GEORGE DUFFIELD, 

PASTOll OF THE FIRST Pl^ESBYTEF.IAN CHURCH OF DETROIT. 



SECOND EDITION. 



NE W.YORK: 

DAYTON & NEWMAN, 199 BROADWAY. 
1842. 



.D 8 



Entered acconi:ii</ to an act of (ooffresa oi the United States of America, in 
(he yoai- IS42, by A. McFarran, lor Geo. DulR- Ul, iu the Clerk's office for the Dis- 
trict ot Michiijan. 



'^'he Library 



wa^sEnaRsmsMf 



LC control Number 




tmp96 



027663 



Detroit, March 21, lS4*<i. 
Rev. ij -V ^^*^ IsttPresbyterian Church in Detroit: 

Deap ^^^'^^nlitletl, " Episcopal Bishops the successors of the Apos- 

tles," r .lishefl by Bishop McCoskry, having been circulated to some ex- 

tent among the members of our communion, in which he claims for the Bishop, the 
sole right to confer powers which we believe are conferred only by the Lord Jesus 
Christ — and claims " that it is only through this ministry that pardon and accep- 
tance with God can be made known," and that "all who profess to be commis- 
sioned embassadors of Christ, arc gross impostors," if tlielr powers arc not derived 
in a line of succession from the Apostles — and believing these claims to be wholly 
unsupported by the Scriptures, or the early Fathers, we have to request, if you 
deem the occasion sufficient, that you will present for publicaiion, the views you 
entertain on this subject, at as early a day as may comport with your convenience. 
We are, dear sir, most affectionately yours in the bonds of the gospel, 
BENJ. F. LARNED, D. LAMSON, 

E. P. HASTINGS, JOHN G. ATTERBURY, 

A. L. PORTER, FRANCIS RAYMOND, 

ALEX. McFARRAN, J. L. WHITING, 

H. H. BROWN, ASHER B. BATES, 

D. COOPER, JAMES F. JOY, 

JOHN PALMER, THOS. J. OWEN, 

SHUBAEL CON A NT, M. HOWARD WEBSTER, 

ALANSON SHELEY, E. BINGHAM, 

ROBERT STUART, JNO. HULBURT, 

WM. A. HOWARD, HORACE HALLOCK. 

ROSS WILKINS, A. C. M'GRAW, 

THOMAS ROWLAND, FRED. 31. SUMNER, 

GEO. E. HAND, ' CULLEN BROWN, 

S. PITTS, DAVID STUART, (Senior.) 

J. L. WALKER, 



av 6 7 



184*>. 



To Messrs. liEN.T. r. Larked, K. P. Ha.^tinop, Sni . ortk' 

^c, members of the 1st Presbyterian Churo<. 

Dear Brethren— The sermon to which you rclcr, h.itl altract* onliui 

The propriety, if not the obligation, of noticing it, Ijad occurrc<l lo my mind. The 
doctrine it incnlcatca, find the loftj, nnd in my opinion, uaurpaiious, chiims it as- 
serts, require attention. I could have wished the subject had not l)ecn agitated, 
nnd the necessity of avowing and of vindicating their principles and practice, in 
opposition to the allegations and implications of the sermon, had not been imposed, 
by its publication, on the non-F.piscopal denominations in the Church of God. The 
general interests of relijrion, the pe^ncc of society, and the goo<l understanding ami 
kind fcclinf^ which Phould prevail among tlie different Churrhcs, arc not to l»e pro- 
moted by arrogant pretensions, on the part of any one denomination, that they, ex- 
clusively, are the true Church. Nor arc these things to l»c secured by silence, when 
such pretensions are advanced. 

I have, therefore, determined to comply with your rexjuest, and although in th 
midst of more than ordinary pressing engagements, as you know, have commencr 
a series of letters addressed to the author of that sermon, intended as a review o: 
his arguments in particular, and in general of the claims of Episcopacy, In doing 
so, I feel that I am but defending the common ground occupied by Congregational- 
isls, Baptists, Methodists, rresbyterians, Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, Lu- 
therans, and other non-Episcopal portions of the Church of Christ. In repelling 
the attack made U|)on us all in that sermon, I shall be careful not to magnify, or 
even advocate any peculiarities pertaining to us as a portion of the clu-istinn Church . 
however strongly attached, I confess myself to be, to the doctrines and discipline 
ihe principles ami order, of the rrcsbylerian Church. 

You shall be I'urnished with a copy of the letters, wliich K^hall be placed at you- 
disposal. 

With sentiments of respect and afleclion. 

I remain your servant in the Lord, 

GEORGE DUFFIELD. 



PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



The correspondence prefixed to the first edition, fully explained the occasion, and 
dnfolded the reasons, for the publication of the following letters. It was no fond- 
ness for controversy that dictated them. The author would prefer much to culti- 
vate christian and ministerial intercourse, than to be involved in polemics. 

The request made by the beloved members of his charge, however, convinced 
him that forbearance would cease to be a virtue •, and that he should prove recreant 
to the interests of truth and of the church with which he is connected, if the arro- 
gant claims of prelacy, and the insinuations and assertions — prejudicial to the mi- 
nisterial character of himself and of his bretliren, not only of the Presbyterian, but 
of other non-Episcopal denominations,— so recently and confidently made in this 
place, should be allowed to pass unnoticed. 

The public will judije of liie spirit and success with which the subject has been 
handled. The demand for a second edition, while it furnishes proof of the interest 
felt in the suliject, affords an opportunity to state the general question, and to guard, 
once for all, against the misapprehensions, so apt to be produced by bold and con- 
fident but fallacious assertions. The perversion of the language, sentiments, and 
arguments of others, sometimes so adroitly made, by afiirming them to be in sup- 
port of what is perfectly foreign to the design, and well known opinions of an au- 
thor, may and will mislead the credulous and those who are incapable of discrimi- 
nating and of judging for themselves ; but among the reflecting part of the commu- 
nity it will always recoil on him that attempts, in this way, to deceive. 

That ever the language and arguments of the late learned and illustrious Dr. John 
M. 3Iason should bave been cited " in favor of the apostolic ministerial successiony"* 
will not fail to induce a smile in those, who, either knew the man, or are at all ac- 
quainted with the history of his caustic review of Bishop Hobart, and, of other pre- 
latical writers of his day. 

Were he yet alive, and should learn that this use had been made of his language, 
he would not fail to salute him that did it, with one of his withering looks, and the 
epithet, so freely used by him in his declining years, when addressing his collegiate 
students whom he found dull of apprehension ; nor would he think any other reply 
necessary. 

The official warrant, proper and necessary to be received, from those already in 
the ministerial oflice, by them who say they are called of Jesus Christ to preach 
His gospel, — the regular succession of a class of men styled the christian ministry, 
preserved in the church and world by the good pravidence of God,— and their au- 
thority to govern, or, in other words, to administer discipline in the church, under 

1 



the direction of Jesus Christ, and a sense of their obligations to account, for all they 
do, to the sole supreme head and lawgiver of His church — are matters totally differ- 
ent from THE APOSTOLIC MINISTERIAL succtssioN, avovvcd, and advocated by prelati- 
cal writers. 

The distinction set forth in the following letters, is precisely the same with that 
so perspicuously and saiisfftctorily asserted by Arch-bishop Whutely, though at the 
time the author wrote tlie letter in which it is advanced, l,e had not seen or read the 
entire essays of this distinguislied prelate, nor his views especially on this subject. 
Having shown how many and great were the irregularities connected witli ordination, 
and which, on higli cliurch pi inciples, vitiated its sacramental virtue, and having 
affirmed that " there is not a mirii.sler in all Christendom who is able to trace up, 
with any degree of certainty, his own f^piritual pedigree,'* he expresses himself thus : 
"The ultimate consequence (of this hypothesis of an un'jroken line of succession 
connecting any particular minister with the apostles,) must be that any one who 
sincerely believes that his claim to the benefits of the Gospel Covenant, depends on 
his own ministers claim to the supposed sacramental virtue of true ordination, and 
this again, on perfect apostolical succession as above descril)ed, must be involved, 
in proportion as he reads, and inquires, and rctiects, and reasons, on the subject, in 
the most diitrcssing doubt or perplciiity. 

*' It is no wonder, therefore, that the advocates of this theory, studioxuly disparage 
reasoning, deprecate all exercise of the mind in reflection, deny appeals to evidence, 
and lament that even the power of rejiling should be Imparted to the people." 

Dr. INI ison affirmed, that from the days of Jesus Christ, there had been in the 
world such an order of men as chrisLian ministers. One generation had succeeded 
to another, and they could bo traced up to Him as the Divine author of the order. 
His object. In his Fssays on the Church of God, in which he speaks of the christian 
ministry,* was to prove, that the office and order originated in Divine appointment, 
and that ever since the days of Cbrist, hy His authority an I the influence of His 
Spirit, men had been called to the office of the ministry, whose qualifications and 
claims to have been so called, had been examined by those in the ministry at the 
time, and having been Judged valid and true, were warranted to go forth as accredi* 
ted embassadors of Christ, to preach His gospel. These ministers, he affirmed, 
were of equal authority — presbyters, and not '* Episcopal Bishops." To employ 
his language in proof of any other succession, especially of the doctrine of '* apos- 
tolic ministerial succession," according tohi gh church principles, will deservedly 
render him who docs it, liable to the charge, either of extreme obtuseness of in- 
tellect, or moral obliquity. 

"The fallacy," says Arch-bishop Whatcly, "consists in confounding together 
the unbroken apostolic succession of a christian ministry generally, and the same 
succession in an unbroken line, of this or that individual minister.'^f 

This is the fallacy which the author of the discourse, reviewed in the following 
letters, has fallen into and attempted to advocate. The review is mainly concerned 
with his argument, and though personally addressed in the letters, the production 
of his pen, as the representative and advocate of prelacy and high church principles, 
is kept in view rather than the author himself. 

A third edition of " the Sermon" has just appeared, in the preface to which the 

author has quoted from Dr. John M. Mason, as above referred to, and attempted to 

cite him in proof of " the apostolic ministerial succession,''^ which he teaches. 

* See Whately's Esiavs, III.ou the kiugdom of Cbrtit, pp. 180-183. 
T Christian Magazinej r. HI, pp. 263-269. 



iU 

The argument is : 

Main Proposition— The doctrine of Dr. Mason and Bishop McCcskry concern- 
ing ministerial succession, is the same. 

PuooF— Both speak of the christian ministry — both leach that they are an order 
of Divine appointment, to be perpetuated in the church. 

Conclusion— Therefore, Dr. Mason and Bishop McCoskry both teach the doc- 
trine of Apostolic ministerial succession. Q. K. D. ! ! 

By a like argument, Paris and Pbiladelphia may be proved to be the same place. 
Both begin vvitli P — both lie on a river, and there arc fish in both. 

A few notes of explanation &re contained in the third edition, which do not, how- 
ever, contravene any of the positions or proofs advanced in the leiters, and are 
principally a reiterated assertion of the fallacies exposed. A confession and dis- 
claimer are made on the 14th page, in reference to the hypothetical charge that " all 
who profess to be commissioned of Christ, are gross impostors," if the apostolic 
ministerial succession, advocated in the sermon, be not "clearly settled." " This 
term," (gross impostors,) he says, " is in no respect intended to apply to the min- 
istry of other denominations. The author used it in reference to the ministry of his 
own church— as applicable to them, if there was no apojtolic succession. Common 
courtesy, much more, christian kindness, would forbid such an application. While 
he differs from them most widely, yet he cannot consider them as impostors. He 
does not believe they are wilfully in error ; but only so, from wrong bias, and the 
prejudice of early education. He thinks no honest mind could misunderstand him. 
If so, he would cheerfully, as he now does, disclaim any such application. He has 
many dear friends in that ministry whom he respects and loves. Besides his an- 
cestors were and are connected with a denomination differing in their organization 
from the Church ; although he himself was never connected with, or professed any 
attachment to, any other body, bu*,to that to which he now belongs, unless his bap- 
tism in infancy might be so considered."— iNo'e to third edition, page 24. 

Many honest minds did think, and do so still, that the entire structure of the argu- 
ment, and the very terms of the doctrine avowed and taught, and of the hypothesis 
stated, pointed the allegation directly and mainly, against "the ministry of other 
denominations." It is somewhat of a relief, and a compliment cordially accepted, 
to be informed, that the great effort has been to guard the Episcopal ministry from the 
charge of being gross impostors ; and that neither "courtesy," nor "christian kind- 
ness" would admit of its application to a non-Episeopally ordained ministry. Of 
course, the charge was in no wise applicable to them ; for if it be applicable to them 
by hypothesis — as it is admitted to behypolheiically applicable to the Episcopal min- 
istry—neither "courtesy" nor "christian kindness" would forbid its application to be 
made, but on the contrary, would require it. Asserting no such high claims for the 
ministry, which the sermon does for " Episcopal Bishops," we are happily exempt 
from all suspicions of being gross impostors ; and we cordially sympathize with the 
author in his fears and efforts to defend his Episcopal ministry from the charge, 
which he admits, by hypothesis, to be applicable — but which we never preferred or 
surmised. 

The author of " the sermon," never partook of the Lord's supper in the Presby- 
terian church, and entered, by profession of faith and by covenant, into full fellow- 
ship with it. He was when a lad, a catechumen of the author of the letters, and 
after having attained manhood, professed to have been converted under his ministry, 
and attended his bible class, but subsequently ceased to worship in the Presbyterian 



Iv 

cnurch, and withdrew to the Episcopal. The author of " the letters," referred lo hi- 
early relation to the Presbyterian church — his youthful attachment to if, proved by 
his attendance on its ministry and worship, and not to his ever being formally uni- 
ted by covenant in full fellowship with the church, and by participation of the Lord's 
supper. The occasion of his withdrawal from ihc Presbyterian to the Episcopal 
church, was never understood to be the result of religious principles newly adopted. 
These are the circumstances referred to. The author of the letters never meant 
more; nor does his language imply more 



TO THE REV. S. A. McCOSKRY, D. D., 

BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE STATE 
OF MICHIGAN. 



Letter I. — Introduction, 
Reverend AND dear sir: 

I have lately seen and read, ** the sermon" preached 
by yourself, in St. Paul's Church in this city, "which 
you have given to the public through the medium of 
the press. Allow me to say, in the spirit of friendship, 
which has prevailed for many years between us, and 
always marked our intercourse, that I have been very 
much grieved, by some things in that sermon, as well 
as, by its general spirit and bearing. 

Whatever views you may entertain as an Episcopa- 
lian, and however strong may be your preferences of 
the church of your adoption, I am free to confess, that 
they would never, in the least degree, have affected 
me, or induced any attempt through the medium of the 
press, or in any public way, to express my dissent or 
disapprobation, had you not so stated and endeavored 
to enforce them, as to imply things highly criminating 
other denominations, and placed yourself in a bellige- 
rent attitude toward them. 

I have ever sought to cherish christian liberality, 
and though, as a Presbyterian, differing in some par- 
ticulars, from brethren of other denominations, yet as 
1^ 



that you cannot consistently recognize, as part of it, 
those who differ from you, in your peculiar sentiments, 
as an Episcopalian ; nor can you have ministerial or 
religious intercourse with them. It is hence that I feel 
myself called, in faithfulness to a large portion of the 
church of Jesus Christ, to the denomination to which I 
belonor, and to the beloved members of mv own chars:e, 
who have solicited an expression of my views, to my- 
self as bound to love and seek the w^elfarc of the whole 
church of God, to the general interests of society 
among us, as well as to yourself, my personal friend 
and fellow servant in the gospel, to pay this public re- 
spect to your sermon. 

In doing so, I write as I feci, not as j^ersonally op- 
posed to you, nor unfiiendly, but wounded, in common 
with many of my brethren, and members of my charge, 
at being so unceremoniously and so untenderly exclu- 
ded from the church of God, consigned by you to *' the 
uncovenantcd mercies of God,'' and by the very design 
and structure of your argument, if conclusive, classed 
with '^ gross impostors/' Whatever language I may 
emj)loy, if judged too strong or harsh, I beg that it 
may not be referred to any unfriendly or unchristian 
feeling, but to the interest I feel on the subject, and to 
my sense of its importance. It shall ever be my effort 
to maintain the friendship existing between us, not- 
withstanding I feel constrained to defend myself and 
others from the imputations of your sermon. 

You have not written and published that discourse, 
without wishing to be distinctly understood, as being 
thoroughly convinced, that Episcopacy, after the man- 
ner and views you unfold, forms an essential feature of 



the true church of Jesus Christ. So essential do you 
regard it, that you cannot recognize any not holding 
the same. You will not, therefore, think it strange that 
I should be surprised, exceedingly surprised, at such a 
change in your views, since exalted to the Episcopate, 
when the manner and circumstances of your transition 
from the Presbyterian to the Episcopal church are so 
well known to me. I concede, that you are now fully 
convinced of the truth of the views you entertain, 
so condemnatory of the denomination in which you 
were brought up, and to which once you professed to 
be attached. I take your discourse as the outline, if 
not the sum and substance, of those arguments and con- 
siderations by which your own mind has been changed, 
and by which you now seek to influence others, whom 
you have either found in that communion, or would 
persuade to enter it. And I am particularly gratified 
with such an opportunity to examine and judge of that 
process of reasoning, by'which you yourself have been 
converted, and you seek to convert others, to your pre- 
sent views. 

If the doctrines taught in your discourse, and the 
high claims asserted for your church, are what they 
are taught, who, you say, ^^are now seeking for some 
resting place, where they may escape such agitations, 
(and which you alledge to be appropriate to all other 
than Episcopal churches,) and feel secure,'' by virtue of 
their introduction into this misnamed **ark of safety,'' 
then it is the duty of every one who cannot remain in- 
different, w^here such claims are asserted, to put them 
fairly and fully to the test. This I propose to do, and 
prefer to address myself personally to you, that I may 



10 

the more certainly and effectually guard against the 
use of any expressions, which, in an abstract discussion, 
might drop, and be thought uncourteous or unkind. In 
doing so, I shall freely examine your mode of reason- 
ing, the sentiments you inculcate, and your claims to 
Apostolical succession, intrinsically and historically con- 
sidered. 

The assertion with which you commence, *^ that 
seldom, if ever, has there been exhibited a more anx- 
ious spirit of intjuiry in reference to the true church of 
Christ, than at the present day," needs to be greatly 
qualified. A reference to the controversies of former 
years, both in the old and new world, will show, that 
this ground has long since been travelled over, and 
a much greater anxiety displayed than at this day. 
Whatever controversy may exist in your own churches 
growing out of the Oxford tractators and their coadju- 
tors in the United States, who are attempting to revive 
the Romanism of the fourth century, or that modifica- 
tion of Christianity which the Gnostic philosophy pro- 
duced — it is admitted, may be best known to those 
involved immediately in it. Outside of your own 
churches, it is gratuitous to assert the existence of such 
an anxiety. The proof of the fact is called for. To 
what public documents will you refer? Whatever at- 
tention has been given to the subject, recently, by the 
periodical editors, and occasional contributions of au- 
thors, have been elicited by the controversy in the 
Episcopal church, originating first between high and 
low^ church, and now between the Oxford and Evan^ 
gelical theologians. What addition has been made to 
the number of your churches, and of their members of 



11 

late, may, to a very great extent, be traced to other 
causes. So far as my personal observation goes — and 
it has been somewhat ^^ close,*' with opportunities for 
knowing — very diflercnt causes have led to the in- 
crease of Episcopal churches and members. 

The insinuation about harsh and coarse invective, as 
though it had not been at least fully reciprocated, had 
much better been withheld; especially when the pro- 
ductions of certain Episcopal authors in our own coun- 
try are yet extant. The alledged w^eariness of other 
sects with divisions, &c., which you say, is urging 
many to seek ^' some resting place, where they can es- 
cape such agitations," is just as gratuitous as the other. 
The discipline of some Presbyterian churches, and the 
confessions and avovvals of certain votaries of fashion — 
who arc willing to assume the form, but deny the 
power of true religion — would throw light upon the 
character of that case, v/hich, in some cases, at least, 
is sought in Episcopal churches. 

The "appeal to popular prejudice," and the keeping 
back the claims of the church of Christ, *' under the 
specious name of religious freedom," to which you re- 
fer, are too well identified with the history of the pu- 
ritan migrations to this continent, and the successful 
struggle for the liberty and independence of these Uni- 
ted States, to be misunderstood by any acquainted with 
its history, or to be judged deserving of such implied 
censure. Nor is it at all descriptive of the present 
times to say, that ** the christian world (is) highly ex- 
cited by the wide spread ruin w^hich schism has effected, 
and is therefore anxiously and boldly inquiring, where 
and what is the true church of Christ V That the evils 



12 

of schism are greatly deplored, and measures proposed 
for their prevention or correction, is true; but your 
definition of schism, viz: '^separation from the true 
church of Christ, meaning the Episcopal church, as 
your argument and the whole spirit or drift of your 
discourse show, is utterly false. Paul's idea of schism 
was very different from yours. See 1 Cor., iii, 3-4. 
The divisions of which he speaks, were in the Corin- 
thian church; and not a whit worse than there are in 
your own at this very day, as the controversies among 
you show. It is not the formal rent or secession that 
Paul accounted schism. Your Greek concordance will 
show you that in Mat., ix, 16, and Mark, ii, 21, where 
the word is used to mean rent, it applies to cloth, but 
in every other place, John, vii, 43; ix, 10; x, 19; 1 
Coi\, i, 12; xi, 18; xii, 25, it is used to denote strifes, 
contentions, divisions of sentiment and feeling, not se- 
paration. 

Churches often divide, and do it anjicably. When 
their members are not perfectly joined in the same 
mind, and of the same judgment, as in Corinth, 1 Cor,y 
i, 10-12, but have contentions among them, there is 
the sin of schism. You will not find the word schism 
once used in the New Testament in the sense in which 
you have; however, you may, among popish and high 
church writers. 

Your idea is too plain to be mistaken. They, in 
your judgment, are schismatic, who do not, and because 
they do not, belong to the Episcopal church, which you 
assume to be the true church. By the same mode of 
reasoning, you, and all your churches, are schismatic. 
In common with other protestant churches, you all 



13 

have departed from the Roman Catholic church, which 
church you nevertheless acknowledge to be a true 
church of Christ, of which you once formed a constitu- 
ent portion, as your line of apostolical succession shows, 
and by which, your Bishops, through whom you trace 
that succession, and the existing orders of the English 
church, are declared to be null and void, and without 
any authority whatever. And further, by your defini- 
tion of schism, you have proved that, for a period at 
least, the protestant Episcopal church of the United 
States was guilty of this sin, when she '^separated her- 
self entirely from the jurisdiction of a foreign Bishop, 
and declared her independence,^' ** renounced all for- 
eign jurisdiction, (and) of course was left without a 
Bishop, and without the apostolic succession,'' accord- 
ing to your own showing. 



LETTER II. 
gratuitous assumption.^. 
Rkv. and dear sir: 

After an introduction so full of gratuitous assertions, 
it is not surprising that you should have built your ar- 
gument on an alledged state of things in the churches, 
equally incorrect, and on assumptions equally wide from 
the fact. 

One of these assumptions is, *- the ruinous idea (evi- 
dently attributed by you to all *^ the countless number 
of sects^^ not Episcopal,) that men could associate to- 
gether, and adopt such rules atid government for them- 
selves, as may suit their tastes^ and still be entitled to 
lay claim to be a part of the church of Christ." Where, 
and in what denominations, you have found this ** ruin- 
ous idea,'' it behooves you to show. It is enough to 
deny, that it is admitted, far less adopted, by Congre- 
gationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and 
other protestant denominations, who, in common, act 
upon the principle avowed by Lord Chillingworlh : 
'* the bible, I say the bible only, is the religion of pro- 
testants." The organization of churches — Presbyte- 
rian, Congregational and Baptist — comprising the lar- 
gestportion of iheprolestant denominations in this coun- 
try, proceeds on very different principles from those of 
voluntary associations, with which you evidently iden- 
tify them. They recognize Jesus Christ as sole 
Head and Lawgiver in His Church, — as prescribing 
the rule of faith and practice, and as calling and quali- 



16 



fying for their station, the officers which He has ap- 
pointed in the church of God. The organization takes 
place under the care of a presiding and officiating min- 
ister, by the actual covenanting, to walk in fellowship 
together and with Jesus Christ, agreeably to His laws 
and subject to His authority, of those who are members 
of His church. They only are regarded as such who 
either have been members, in good and regular standing 
in different christian churches, and produce their certifi- 
cates that they have been dismissed expressfy for that 
purpose, and bear their recommendation, or who by the 
profession of credible faith in Jesus Christ, and after 
examination, prove themselves to be called and chosen 
of Him. If unbaplized, they are thereupon baptized, 
admitted as members of His church, and constituted 
such— as they believe all the members of the church 
of Christ arc— by His gift, of faith, and of the Holy 
Spirit to them. 

As to the municipal regulations, which they may 
find it convenient to adopt, in order to carry out and 
enforce among themselves, the great laws of Christ's 
house, they claim no other right or authority than you 
admit and boast the protestant Episcopal church of 
these United States did, when you say/^Micr first ef- 
forts were made to conform her whole human organi- 
zation and legislation to that adopted and followed by 
the people of this country, in reference to their eivil 
government." Now, I would very respectfully in- 
quire, whether you had made yourself acquainted with 
the principles and usages which are respected by these 
three respectable christian denominations, in the orga- 
nization of their particular churches ? Certainly, if 



you had, you would not have assumed as true, what is 
not the fact, that they proceed as voluntary societies, 
and adopt such rules and government for themselves 
as *^ may suit their iaste^^^ and that too, when you avow, 
that this is precisely what the protestant Episcopal 
church of these United States did, and to an extent 
beyond what any of those churches were ever guilty of 
doing, even to the admission of representatives annually 
elected by the people, who sometimes are not member* 
of the Episcopal chuich nor of any other. 

Your second gratuitous assumption is, that the church 
is frequently called, in the sacred scriptures, the king- 
dom OF Christ. You have not produced a single pas- 
sage in proof of this assertion. I deny that the church 
is called the kingdom of Christ, or "' a kingdom,'* as 
you have it, or that the phrases, *^ the kingdom of hea- 
ven," ** the kingdom of God," denote the visible orga- 
nized society of believers or church on earth. But as 
you have the general current of commentators with 
you in support of this opinion, I am willing to let you 
have all the use you can make of this assumption, 
only remarking — that every passage where the phrases 
** the kingdom/' ** the kingdom of God," 'Mhe kingdom 
of Heaven," occur in the New Testament, can be 
shown, by the strict rules of exegecis, to refer, under 
some aspect, to that blessed and glorious state, which, 
Christ and his saints in heaven are now expecting, and 
His church on earth awaiting, when His enemies shall 
be made His footstool, and when He, with them, shall 
reign over all the earth; and further — that these phra- 
ses do not occur commonly in the writings of the fath- 
ers of the first two centuries, in reference to the church 
2^ 



TB 

rn this worM. Nor did they become common in this 
acceptation, until after Origen had allegorized the Bible, 
Christianity had been established by law in the days of 
Constauline, the Hierarchy had been developed, and 
ecclesiastical parasites begun to flatter the civil power. 
Then, but not till then, the notion of the visible church 
being the kingdom of Christ, was seized with avidity, 
and formed the steps on which the Bishop of Rome as- 
cended to his lofty scat, wiience he claims, as Christ's 
vicegerent, to exercise his Oecumenical sway. 

The next gratuitous assumption you make, and 
which, in connection with the one first noticed, forms 
the very pivot of your whole argument, is, thai Christ 
and his apostles, use the word ciitRcii, invariably in 
one and the same sense, to denote the visible organized 
gociety of them that believe. Your whole argument 
falls to the gronrid, if, in the passages you quote, the 
word is not employed by Christ and his apostle?, to 
nncan the visible organized society of be'ievcrs. That 
you have quoted their language, in the sense in which 
they used it, you have not even attempted to show. 
Thus, when you misquote Paul as saying *' He pur- 
chased a church with His own blood,'' a very different 
idea from ** the church of Gorf which He hath purchased 
with his own blood," as Paul has it; when you say 
that the church is called *'His body, His spouse. His 
bride, the Lamb's wife, and Christ is the Head of the 
bodj\ the church;" and again, '* there is one body and 
one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your 
calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and 
Father of all, w^ho is above all, and through all and in 
you all," you never condescend^ qvcw to attempt a 



19^ 

proof, that these expressions all denote the society of 
true christians, as visibly organized in their church 
state in this world, but boldly and confidently affirnfi 
** such declarations at once settle the point, that the 
church is not of human organization, but was estab- 
lished by Christ himself — that it cannot be. altered in 
any way by man, either on the plea of necessity, or of 
supposed advantage to be gained." How or by what 
logic you deduce such inferences from the above quo- 
tations, it is for yourself to show. The}^ are what lo- 
gicians call either non-sequiturs or a petitio principiiy 
inferences that do not follow, or a begging of the ques- 
tion. 

In common with yourself, Presbyterians, Congrega- 
tionalists and Baptists believe, that Christ's '* church is 
not of man's forming, but has been established by Him- 
self, and is regulated by well disposed and well estab- 
lished laws ;'' but that the passages you have quoted 
prove this, ar *' seHfe the point,'' that the words spouse^ 
bride, body, &c., or the woid church, always mean 
what you assume they do, viz : the visible organized 
society, is distinctly, formally, publicly denied. This, 
as acquainted witli the controversy, you must know ; 
and certainly mere ordinary respect for those whose 
views you condemn, as well as for the argument you 
have advanced, required you to be cautious how you laid 
the foundation of that argument on positions or assump- 
tions not granted, and easily disproved. This was par- 
ticularly and solemnly incumbent on you as a religious 
teacher, in view of the high claims 3^ou assert, and of 
the bold, unqualified, and extraordinary declarations 
you have made and printed in capitals, that ** if the po- 



20 

sitions advanced (by you) cannot be sustained, Christ 

HAS LEFT NO CHURCH ON THE EARTH AND NO MINISTRY 

OF reconciliation'^.'' 

It will not do. after such an averment, to alledge, that 
in preaching and publishing ** the sermon/' you was 
but exercising a common right, and seeking only to 
edify the people of your charge. Thus did Dr. Hobart, 
when called to account by Dr. Linn, after he had, in 
his Companion for the AUar^ published in 1804,. exclu- 
ded all non-Episcopalians from *' the church which the 
Redeemer purifies by His blood, and quickens by His 
Spirit;" charged ihcm with *'great guilt;" declared them 
to be in ** imminent danger,'* for *' negligently or wil- 
lingly continuing in a state of separation from the Epis- 
copal church ;" j^ronounccd their ministrations **irregu- 
lar and invalid;" accused them of ** wilfully rending 
the peace and unity of the church, as absolutely con- 
temning the means which God had appointed for their 
salvation;" and proclaimed them to be ''guilly of rebel- 
lion against their Almighty Lawgiver and Judge ! 1" 

You have thrown down the gauntlet, and preached 
and published a discourse, which charges all non-Epis- 
copalians with being schismatics and impostors, their 
commissions forgeries, and their sacraments sacrile^ 
gious, and proclaimed, that if the positions you have 
stated, and '^most fully believe," cannot be sustained, 
the very church of God itself must be annihilated!! 

You have taken too lofty ground to remain unnoticed.. 
You have challenged reply. You have advanced the 
boldest assertions ; and proof, proof, proof, is right- 
fully expected and required from you. You are met 
in the very threshhold. Your assumptions are denied. 



21 

For one, I am free to confess my perfect amazement^ 
that you should have built your towering argument 
upon the sand^ and not dug down to the rock, and 
founded it on the fair legitimate import of the words of 
Christ and His Apostles. It behooved you to prove, 
that the sense you attach to the word church, is the 
right one, and the only one that can be attached to it. 
in the places you quote. The original word churchy 
in Eph,^ V, 24-27, which you quote to prove the con- 
ti nuance in the world of the visible organized society 
of christians, till it becomes perfect, does not mean the 
visible church but the whole body of the redeemed ; 
those truly united to Christ by faith, as the wife is 
united to her husband ; not the wicked and impenitent 
along with the pious who may be united to your chur- 
ches. 

Equally wide from the mark, is your quotation from 
Eph,, iii, 3, w^here the word church also denotes, not 
the visible society on earth, comprising the good and 
bad, but the whole body of the church, Christ's spirilua' 
people, both Jews and Gentiles, all gathered into one 
blessed and glorious society — ** the whole family in 
heaven and earth,'' as the Apostle expresses himself, v, 
15, by wd'jich is '* made known to the principalities and 
powers," not of this world, '^ but in heavenly places." 
i. e. to the lofty orders of intelligent beings in heaven, 
'* the manifold wisdom of God" in the scheme of salva- 
tion. 

It is not necessary to refer you to the six different 
primary, and other secondary senses, in which the word 
church is used, both in the New Testament, and by 
uninspired writers. You will find the Fathers Tertul-*- 



22 

Han, Adversus Marcion, Lib., A, p. 19G, Exhort., and 
Caslitat. p. 455, Irenaeus, Lib, 4, c. 72, p, 308, as quo- 
ted by Lord King, and in other places, using the word 
church, in the above sense of the redeemed, viz : those 
who by a sound repentance and a hvely faith, are ac- 
tually interested in Jesus Christ. Your quotations are 
exceedingly mal-a-pro-pos, and your assunnptions to- 
tally without foundation. It might, therefore, suffice 
here to rest, till you had repaired tlie breach in them, 
if possible ; but I shall proceed, in my next letter, to 
notice the argument of your discourse, and in the order 
in which it is developed. 



LETTER IIL 

the argument vut to logical tests- 

Rev. and dear sir : 

In preparing the way for the presentation of your 
argument, you say, that nothing is left to men, ** but 
to become subjects of this kingdom, the church, obey 
its laws and promote its interests," and that therefore 
it becomes '* a question of vast innportance to ascertain 
to whom Christ has committed the government of this 
kinordom 1 Had they successors! And what are their 
powers and duties V^ 

If the power and authority of making laws and go- 
verning His church on earth, are in the hands of Jesus 
Christ, we know with whom w^e have to do. His laws 
must be obeyed, and His honor and glory promoted by 
all who belong to it. We Presbyterians, rejoice, along 
with all protestants, that Christ is the supreme Head 
and Lawgiver of His church. ''Tl.e Lord is our 
Lawgiver.'' We make our appeal to His word. It is 
the statute book of His Church. '*To the law and to 
the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, 
it is because there is no light in them." Ho^v happy 
arc we under such a glorious Head — the One infallible 
and infinite Supreme, whom God our Father, endowed 
with authority, when '' He gave Him to be Head over 
all things, to the church, which is His body, (and not 
man's,) the fullness of Him that filleth all in all!" 

But, if the church has passed out of His hands, and 



24 

His Headship has been transferred to others, woe ! 
woe betide us J Verily, it does become a question, of 
infinite importance for us, to know, in whose hands we 
are, and whether Jesus Christ ever resigned and trans- 
ferred to others, the power conferred on Him. You 
boldly affirm, ** that He transferred the power He re- 
ceived from God His Father,'' and quote in proof of it, 
Johru, XX, 21, as fiilhj declaring it, Jls imj Father hath 
sent mCj even so send I you. You will not account me 
uncourteoue, in saying that these words declare no such 
thing. 

For a moment, it was a matter of perfect amaze- 
ment, how you could have ever excogilalcd such an 
idea from them. The course of your remarks in the 
paragraph containing the outline of your argument, has 
been carefully and candidly examined to see how your 
mind has reasoned. In the first place you use the word 
^'transfeij," and not ** confer,'' evidently to say, that 
the pow^cr He received of the Father, the same He 
conveyed away to His Apostles, so that what He con. 
veycd away no longer belonged to Him. This is the 
meaning of the word transfer, as the lexicographers 
show. No one ever dreams of his owning and pos- 
sessing what he has transferred to another. Now 
that Jesus Christ ever parted with power that God 
gave Him, and transferred it to others, is most une- 
quivocally denied, and the proof called for. In the 
next place, you assume that the Saviour, by the use of 
the particles '^ as" and ^^even 5o," institutes a compari- 
son between the office in which the Father sent Him, 
and the office in which He sent His Apostles, instead of 
expressing the resemblance between His mission and 



25 

theirs. The words mean only, and cannot be tortured 
to nnean any thing more than, that He would as cer- 
tainly send them His missionaries or messengers, as the 
Father had sent Him. There is not here, one word 
said about power of governing the church, or Headship 
in it, or any such thing. We must refer to other pas- 
sages to ascertain what w^as the mission to which He 
would commission them, and what were the points of 
resemblance between His own and theirs. 

You seem, however, to be aware, that the passage 
does not so fully declare the transfer you affirm ; for 
you have constructed an argument to prove its mean- 
ing to be such, and again you are found assuming what 
is far from being correct. You say, '• every thing that 
could be possessed by a mere human being, was given 
by the Saviour" — meaning to the apostles. This is the 
major proposition of your syllogism — the foundation of 
your argument, which it behooved you to prove. It 
is not the fact, either in the unqualified form, or even 
with the limitations to the business of governing the 
church — in which you most probably meant it to be un- 
derstood — that the Saviour had gone to the extent of 
omnipotence in imparting the qualifications, authority 
or gifts, which might have been imparted to a mere hu- 
man being. Should you attempt to prove it, you will 
find the proof infinitely more difficult than assertion. 
Here then, is an essential fliaw in your argument. It 
is utterly good for nothing till this, your major propo- 
sition, is established. 

Having, however, assumed it, you bring forward 
your minor, which you state in these words: *^ He (z. e, 
Christ,) was as the apostle declares, the Head of the 
3 



26 

hodyP Then follows your conclusion, with an infe- 
rence from it. Consequently this Headship was trans- 
ferred, and all the power necessary to preserve and 
regulate the body." To have made your argument 
intelligible, and logically conclusive, you should have 
affirmed Christ's Headship of the body to be one of 
those things which being possessed by Him, He could 
transfer to a mere human being. Having so affirmed, 
you should have proved, and not assumed, it. Your 
argument then w^ould have been in regular syllogistic 
form. 

Major — Every thing that could be possessed by a 
mere human being, w^as given by the Saviour to His 
apostles. 

Minor — But the Headship of the body, which ac- 
cording to the apostles, Christ possessed, could be trans- 
ferred to them. 

Ergo — This Headship was transferred. 

Had you proved your major and minor propositions, 
your conclusion would have been unavoidable, and you 
might then have drawn your corollary, or inference, 
viz: that with the Headship was transferred *^all the 
powxr necessary to preserve and regulate the body'' — 
such power obviously being an essential part of the 
Headship. But, instead of even attempting any proof 
of either, you jumble all together, major, minor, con- 
clusion, and inference ! And having done so, bestow all 
your effi3rt at proof upon the inference, attempting by 
the argumcnium diicens in aJfSurdu??i, to prove the ab- 
surdity that would follow from the contrary supposi- 
tion ! 

The real absurdity seems, however, to have escaped 



27 

your notice. ^^ If the power lo preserve and regulate 
the body be not transferred with the Headship of the 
body, the body itself/' you say, *' must cease to exist, 
and of course the church of Christ come to an end. 
This cannot be.'' You have availed yourself of an 
ijj analogy — which logicians will tell you is not an argu- 
liment — taken from the human body, to prove, that as 
it ceases to exist when its head has no power, so must 
the church of Christ have come to an end, if Christ had 
iK)t transferred His power^ as the Head of His church, 
to His apostles. This thing of transferring heads, is 
jiather an awkward and unintcHigiblc, nay, absurd, af- 
jfair, take it either as an illustration or assertion. 
1 In endeavoringto convict of absurdity, and of the guilt 
.'of annihilating the church of Christ on earth, those who 
.deny that the apostles had the power of Christ's Head- 
ship transferred to them, in order to preserve and re- 
gulate His church, you run into the monstrous absur- 
dity of assuming, that the church of Jesus Christ could 
J not have been preserved and regulated without His 
transferring his Headship. Thus you afRrm that He 
Jias resigned and imparted all his own power and au- 
_tliority in his church on earth, to His apostles. There 
jifi infinitely greater absurdity in the idea, that Christ 
, could NOT retain His Headship and govern and pre- 
j serve His church on earth, after He should go to heaven, 
j than in that, which Presbyterians and others strenuous- 
jly maintain, that Christ never transferred His headship, 
lor the power to preserve and regulate His church, to 
£^ny man or set of m.en, on earth. 

It may seem absurd to you, that any man should 
doubt the power and authority of '* Episcopal Bishops/^ 



28 

— to use your own tautology — as Christ's transferred 
Headship in his church; but to us, Presbyterians and 
other non-Episcopal denominations, it seems infinitely 
more absurd — to say nothing of its presumption — that 
any man should ever think of claiming such power and 
authority. 

That your true meaning has not been mistaken, the 
reiteration of your conclusion, so fallaciously drawn 
from premises unconfirmed, pkainly shows. You say: 
'*It must follow then, that as Christ is the permanent 
Ruler and Head of this body now in heaven, so arc 
those to whom he transferred His power, permanent 
rulers and heads on the earth, for he transferred the 
earthly power over his cliurch." Alas for the world ! 
if the blessed Redeemer has retired to heaven, with- 
drawn himself from the church below, and transferred 
*Uhc earthly |)owjr'' over it to mitred heads!! We 
have no such belief, but have abundant proof of the 
contrary, as will be presently shown. 

I pause for a motiient, to look once more at your 
conclusion, and to see how strangely it has enlarged its 
dimensions, swelling out far beyond its premises. Like 
the polypus, the one head of Christ is divided and grown 
into many permanent rulers and heads on the earth!! 
Verily the body becomes monstrous, and resembles ve- 
ry much, a certain many headed beast, which according 
to John's prediction, should sustain and carry an apos- 
tate church. 

Your conclusion is too wide for your premises. It 
makes every *' Episcopal Bishop*' a head of the church 
on earth, and leaves the heads to be multiplied without 
end. You must mean^ either that each one is such ia 



29 

Ills own diocese, and has the full and independent power 
to preserve and regulate t!ie church on earth within 
that diocese, or that all your ** Episcopal Bishops/' con- 
jointly and collectively, are the Head. Take it either 
w^ay. If the former, all this boasted Unity of your 
churches, dwindles into the mere fact of having an 
** Episcopal Bishop,'' though they may differ in a thou- 
sand other particulars — ^just as each Bishop exercises 
his headship to regulate his diocese. If the latter, still 
the Headsliip and body are divided ; for you admit the 
church of England to be a true church of Jesus Christ, 
the mother whence your church sprung, and the church 
of Rome also, which is the mother of both, and other 
Episcopal churches, with which you have no inter- 
course, and which exercise their Headship perfectly in- 
dependent of you. And that, too, schismatically — as in 
the case of the church of England — by separating from 
the church of Rome, and of the proieslant Episcopal 
church of the United States, by separating from the 
church of England ! Where then is your boasted Uni- 
ty] You have no more to plead or show for it, than 
those whom you call separatists and sectaries, because 
they will not recognize the Headship of your ** Episco- 
pal Bishops !*' 

The church of Rome is infinitely more consistent 
than you are, in advancing this high claim of Headship. 
She knows no divided Headship — acknowledging but 
one Head on earth, his Holiness the Bishop of Rome, 
who claims to be Christ's vicegerent, the regular lineal 
successor of the apostle Peter, to whom he says Jesus 
Christ gave the keys of the kingdom. All separation 
from him is schism, and rebellion against the powxr 
3* 



80 

of Christ's transferred Headship. Verily, if there must 
be an earthly Head, ons is better than many, and it 
will not be long till your churches, amidst the growing 
differences among your '* Episcopal Bishops" will be- 
gin to think so too, and seek a resting place in popery, 
or under some Archbishop, whom they wHl create, 
** where they can escape such agitations and feel se- 
cure,'' as the Roman claims that he, and he alone, 
docs, *' under the broad promise our Saviou/ made to 
His church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it.'^ 

Even the church of England — however corrupt and 
inconsistent in other things — is more consistent than tho 
protcstant Episcopal church of tho United States, in 
respect of the Unity of that transferred Headship of 
which you boast. They recognize, and have, but one 
Head, the Sovereign of the realm, be it king or queen. 
*^ The clergy, that is, the bisliops and archbishops, are 
the church, and the king is fhr Head of the Bishops; 
that is, he is the church, and docs as it plcaseth him 
among its higher and lower orders; his authority is un- 
limited and unconlrolcd ** while parliament chooses to 
maintain the ecclesiastical constitution as now by law 
cstablishad." It is in the church of England that we 
behold the monstrous anomaly of a lay head (more of 
this hereafter,) swaying an ecclesiastical sceptre more 
despotic than any that lias ever been claimed by pa- 
triarchs and popes. The most important changes, 
wrought in the constitution, ceremonies, doctrines, and 
worship of this church, were effected by the will of the 
Sovereign, without consulting either the clerg}' or the 
people, and often in opposition to the known sentiments 



81 

and prejudices of both. The article, admits the right, 
and history proves it has been exercised, and with no 
sparing hand. The king, it is said, possesses •* the pre- 
rogative which we sec to be given always to all godly 
princes in Holy Scriptures, by God himself;, that is, 
that //?ey should rule all states and degrees committed 
lo their charge, by God, whether they be ecclesiastical 
or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword, the stub- 
born and the evil doers.*'* 

It would have been well to have looked more closely 
at the Headship of the church from which yours sepa- 
rated, and at the source of the power your churches, 
when without a Bishop, proposed to exercise, before 
you expressed your lofty claims. With Henry the 
VIII, '' Defender of the Faith, '^ and ** Su|)reme govern- 
or of the Church,'^ originated the separation from the 
Church of Rome, who constituted himself, instead of 
his Holiness, ** the Supreme Head of the church,'' and 
took this title in its ecclesiastical sense. 

In the common prayer-book of the church of Eng- 
land, are preserved two documents, two important do- 
cuments on this subject. One is the royal declaration — 
prefixed to the a] tides, several times confirmed, and re- 
maining to this day a standing evidence of the nature 
of that authority the king claims as supreme governor 
of the Church of i;jn£:Iand — assuminc: " the nrerooative 
of determining, what is the true doctrine of the church ; 
in what sense the articles shall be subscribed by the 
clergy ; what they sha'l and shall not preach ; and that 
the bishops and clergy shall not meet in convocation ex- 
cept under sanction of the broad seal, and that what- 
ever they may draw np in the form of doctrine, or for 

♦"^lie book of the ('e;iO i i:i;>{ion-, i ublisliedin London, 1S35, p. 389, 390 



32 

the purpose of discipline, is a mere nullity, without the 
royal assent /'' 

The second document is of a date so recent as 1761, 
in the reign of George III, in which his majesty expres- 
ses it, as his royal will and pleasure, that the four forms 
of prayer and service, made for the 5th of November, 
theSOlh of January, the 29th of May and the 25th of 
October, be incorporated wilh the book of common pray- 
er, and used yearly, on the said days, in all the cathedral 
and collegiate churches and chapels, in all chapels of 
colleges and halls within both the universities, and of 
the colleges of Eton and Winchester, and in all parish 
churches and chapels throughout the Kingdom." **The 
king's mandate in fact, is the Alpha and Omega of every 
thing in the Chuich of England; nothing can be entered 
upon without his license first humbly sought, nor con- 
cluded wiihout his npprobaticn/^=^ 

Excuse me for dwelling on this point, since the Head- 
ship of your church and the power you possess are de-/ 
rived through this channel according to your own f 
showing. After the restoration of the Church of Eng- 
land back to popery during the days ot Mary, it is ta 
Queen Elizabeth that it again owes it existence. ** It 
was literally her creation — her fiat called it into being/' 
in opposition to all the Bishops, to **the wMiole convoca- 
tion, and to both the universities ; that is, in one word, 
in opposition to the whole body of the clergy of the 
kingdom,-' ^* as may be seen in Fuller and Heylin.''t 
As to what sort of power the sovereigns of England 
exercised in the church, you may learn from the pro- 
clamation of James I, enjoining, '-that after divine ser- 

*The book of the .ienoininrilions, published iji London, 1835, p. 391. 
tVide History oi Dissenters, t-M ed., p. 103, v. I, 



33 

vice, (on the Sabbath,) the people should not be dis- 
turbed or discouraged from their lawful recreations of 
dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting. May games, Whit- 
suntide ales, morris dances, and setting up of May 
poles ;" and from an edict of the same, '* that no prea- 
cher, of w^hat title soever, under the degree of a bishop, 
or a dean, at least, do from henceforth presume to 
preach in any popular auditory, the deep points of pre- 
destination, election, reprobation, or of the universality, 
efficacy, rcsistibility or irresistibility of God's grace, 
but leave things to be handled rather by learned mcn.''^ 
References might be made to other documents of a 
like character. That a layman, and a wom.an. should 
control all ecclesiastics of a spiritual Hierarchy, and 
determine all the matters they are to believe and ob- 
serve, is one of the strangest abuses of reformation that 
; has perhaps ever occurred in the history of human af- 
' fairs. It is a strong practical refutation of all your 
high pretensions of having the power and Headship of 
Jesus Christ transfered and transmitted down through 
the line of your ^'apostolic succession.*' Verily, with 
such glaring facts directly in disproof of your alledged 
Headship of the English Bishops, whence and through 
I whom you have derived your asserted authority, we 
must be excused for not being credulous enough to be 
imposed upon. To a layman, or a woman, is your 
Headship to be traced. From this source did the Eng- 
j lish Bishops, to whom you trace it, get their authority 
\ as shall be further shown in a future letter. 

If you repudiate this channel, then you must trace it 
from the source whence one of your most w-orthy pre- 

^Book of denominations, p. 392. 



34 

lates was ready to do. The late most excellent Bishop 
White, in '' the case of the Episcopal Churches in the 
United States considered," 1782, p. 6, speaking of the 
connection of the Episcopal Churches in this country 
with the Bishop of London, says : '^ his. authority w^as 
derived under a commission from the crown: which, 
though destitute of legal operation, found a general ac- 
quiescence on the part of the churches, being exercised 
no further than to the necessary purposes of ordaining 
and licensing ministers. Therefore, by the revolution 
which threw off all allegiance to the crow^n of Great 
Britain, ^-all former jurisdiction over the churches be- 
ing thus withdrawn, and the chain which held them 
together broken, it w^ould seem,'' says the Bishop, 
*^ that \\\c\v future continuance can he provided forj only 

by VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS FOR UNION AND GOOD GO- 
VERNMENT.''* 

The testimony of Bishop White, as an historian as 
to the facts of his own times, will not be questioned. 
What then think you of the source of that power by 
which your Episcopal Churches in these United States 
have been continued according to his showing ? Where 
now is your boasted Headship of Christ transferred 
to you, when — notwithstanding the *' ruinous idea*' 
that men could associate together, and adopt such 
rules and government for themselves, as may suit their 
tastes, and still be entitled to lay claim to be a part of 
the church of Christ" — Bishop White avowed that the 
future continuance of your churches, after the revolu- 
tion, could only be provided for, by voluntary asso- 
GiATioNs— the principle is the same so far as your ar- 

♦See Smyth pn Apostolic succession, p. 220.. 



35 

gumcnt is concerned, whether it be of churches or 
priests or people — for union and good government? 
Is it from your churches that you mean to say this 
ruinous idea *^ is rapidly passing away ]'' 

In my next letter, the theology and hermenuetics of 
your argument shall receive attention. 



LETTER IV. 

THEOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN THE 
AllGLMENT. 

Rev. and dear sir: 

The immense importance you attach to the official 
power, with which you claim to be invested, and the 
prodigious practical use you are disposed to make of 
it, render a thorough examination of the grounds on 
which you urge that claim, and of the argument by 
which you endeavor to substantiate it, imperiously ne- 
cessary. Having, therefore, exposed the w^ant of logi- 
cal condusiveness, in your argument — forming the basis 
of all that follows, and designed to prove the transfer of 
Christ^s Headship — it next becomes proper to pay some 
attention to the theological and exegetical principles 
involved and assumed in it. 

The conjunctive particles, as and even so, in your 
text, as you perceive, denote comparison. In under- 
taking, therefore, to deliver a discourse, much more to 
found an argument, in proof of the lofty claims you as- 
sert from this passage, ^*as my Father hath sent me, 
even so send I you," it behooved you to have deter- 
mined, on fair principles of biblical exegesis, w^iat w^ere 
the things which the Saviour compared; whether His 
office and the office of His apostles — His power and 
theirs — or His mission and theirs. Instead of doing 
this, you assume that He refers to office; and then, so 
far from instituting a comparison between His office 



40 

gloriously and victoriously in His appointed kingdom ; 
till He should have destroyed every enemy, even death 
itself, and delivered the kingdom into the hands, not of 
apostles, but of God the Father, and God be all in alK 
See 1 Cor., xv, 24-27. It was not until after His re- 
surrection, and after He had assembled His disciples in 
Gallilee — ^just at the very moment He commissioned His 
apostles, and gave them commandment to go forth as 
His messengers, to preach the gospel to every creature 
and teach all nations — that He made known to them His 
lofty authority and power as Head over all things to 
His Church. ** All power," said He, *' is given unto me 
in Heaven and in earth; go ye thrreforc and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and 
the Son and the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe 
all ////7?n'5 whatever I have commanded you ; and lo ! I 
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.'' 
Mat., xxviii, 19-21. Where is there, in all this, the 
most remote hint, that Jesus Christ transferred His 
Headship on earth to the apostles ? or that He gave 
them any authority to rule and govern? Their com- 
mission, which constituted them His apostles, His mes- 
sengers, or missionaries, sent by Him into the world 
was limited to preachhig the gospel and teaching men 
to observe all things that He had commanded them — 
not their own decrees, nor the canons of the church, 
nor the decrees of councils, nor the commands of a 
bishop. He retains the power, and gave the com- 
mands that must be obeyed; and as it w\as the business 
of the apostles, so it is of all bishops, who claim to be 
their successors, to teach men Christ's commands, 
and none other. In all this, there is not a particle of 



41 

proof, that Christ has transferred His headship and given 
power to apostles and to bishops, to rule and govern 
His church on earth. 

The power of ruling and governing the church on 
earth, is that which pertains to the teaching of Christ's 
commands, and to the administration of His ordinan- 
ces, to them who observe the same. Such is the bound- 
ary of the apostles' power, accurately defined by Christ 
Himself in their commission. It exactly accords with 
the limits set to His own apostolical office to teach 
what God had commanded Him. Before, therefore, 
you can avail yourself of this, the apostolic commission, 

i in proof that your Bishops, or any other, have power to 

I rule and govern the church on earth, you must either 
admit, that such power is none other than what per- 
tains to the teaching of the commands of Jesus Christ, 
as they are fully and plainly made know^n in the sa- 

Icred scriptures, and to the administration of His ordi- 
nances to such as observe the same; or you must prove 
that Christ imparted some secret commands and in- 
struction to the apostles, after His resurrection, more 
fully defining their own powers and the duties of men 
but which, having not been incorporated with the writ- 
ten scriptures, are to be transmitted, by traditionary 
revelation, through the line of the only true apostolical 
succession. 

If you admit the former, you take the common ground 

' of Presbyterians and all protestants, who claim no other 
authority for Christ's ministers, than as teachers or 
preachers of His gospel, and as authorized to dispense 
His ordinances to those whom they judge, in the ex- 
ercise of a legitimate judgment, to be observant of 
4# 



42 

Christ's commands. This is respecting Christ as Head 
and Lawgiver of His church, and claiming none other 
power than what pertains, either to the admission, to 
His visible church and ordinances, of those, who by 
virtue of their credible profession of faith in Christ and 
obedience to Him, are judged to be His followers — or 
to the exclusion of those, who, in the exercise of a le- 
gitimate judgment, are judged to be none of His, be- 
cause unobservant of His commands. Tl>e power of 
teaching, and of declaratively judging, in the applica- 
tion of Christ's doctrines and commands to the con- 
sciences, conduct and character of men, by means of 
preaching, of dispensing ordinances, and of church cen- 
sures, is all the power on earth, which Christ has given 
His ministers. None other than this do we recognize. 
All beyond it, we believe, and declare to be, an usur- 
pation of the power and prerogatives of Jesus TIm-Ic^ as 

SOLE AND SUPREME HeAD OF HiS CHURCH. 

Ecclesiastical regulations we regard in no other light 
than as mere municipal regulations, or expedients, ac- 
cordant with the law and order of Christ's church, 
adopted by common consent as consonant with the 
doctrines and precepts of Christ's word; and for the pur- 
pose of carrying out and enforcing more ciTcctually 
the great commandments of our sole Head and Law- 
giver. Whenever any such expedients are found con- 
flicting with the commands of Christ, they are ipso 
facto, null and void. AH claiming to exert power be- 
yond this, whether by human tests and enactments, or 
by virtue of any alledged Headship from Christ in the 
church, are regarded as usurpers. This latter claim of 
Headship, as asserted by the Pope of Rome, our Con- 



t^ 



4S 



fession of Faith proclaims to all the world, constitutes 
him ''that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdi- 
tion, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ 
and all that is called God/'* 

You are not willing to take this protestant ground, 
and to lower so greatly the power you claim, for your- 
self and for the Bishops of your church. Having re- 
lincjuishcd the protestant ground of your ancestors, and 
of the early reformers of your church, you are, there- 
fore, compelled to take the second horn of the dilemma, 
and to pass at once over to the popish ground. If you 
will not admit with us Presbyterians and Protestants, 
the nature and limitations of the power of the ministry, 
as above defined, to be those of preaching the gospel, 
dispensing ordinances, and inflicting church censures, 
according to legitimate judgment founded on Christ's 
laws or commands, exclusively made known in His 
written word, then, so far as the terms of the apostolic 
commission in JMaf., xxviii, 13-20, are concerned, you 
must take the ground of the papist, and maintain, that 
private instruction, and precepts delivered by Christ to 
His apostles in Gallilee after His resurrection, defined 
their full powers and the people's duties of subjection, 
w^hich instruction and precepts, preserved and trans- 
mitted by traditionary revelation, you and your Bishops 
have it in charge to require them to observe. 

Being no believer in such claims to private inspira- 
tion and infallibility, I call for proof; and in the mean 
time, utterly reject, with abhorrence, every attempt, 
whether of Episcopalian or papist, to found upon the 
apostolic commission a claim to Headship in the churcb 

* Confeesion of Faith, chap. 26, sec. 6. 



44 

on earth, by virtue of any alledged transfer of Christ's 
official power and authority. At the time He gave the 
apostles their commission, He claimed himself to be the 
sole and supreme Head, both of His church on earth 
and in heaven: nor did He ever part Avith that sove- 
reignty. 

It seems, indeed, as if you were aware of this ; for 
although you do not adduce it as a quotation in con- 
nection with the notice of the apostolic commission in 
Mat., xxvii, 18-20, part only of which you quote, yet 
you refer to the fact of Christ having received all au- 
thority in Heaven and on earth, and connect it very 
* fallaciously with your text, and what follows about his 
breathing on them, &c., attempting thus to prove their 
authority, and investiture with this high office of Head- 
ship, dnd to refer it to another occasion and incident 
which shall be presently noticed. 

Having found no trace, or shadow of proof, in the 
apostolic commission, that the Saviour means in John, 
XX, 21, to teach that the power, or office of His Head- 
ship was transferred to the apostles, let us for a mo- 
ment advert to JoA/i, xvi, 18, where He expressly 
compares His ^own and the apostles' mission. '^As 
thou,*' said the Saviour, in His prayer to His Father, 
*'hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent 
them into the world.'" This is a perfect parallel with 
your text ; but we look in vain for any proof from it, 
that the apostles were endowed with authority and 
power, such as pertained to Christ's Headship. Not 
a word is said about His headship, nor is the most re- 
mote allusion made to it; nor, indeed, does the Saviour 
seem to have His eye at all, on the office either of him- 



self or of His apostles. He had been in the world 
doing His Father's will, delivering his messages, in- 
structing the lost and guilty, and had met with great 
difficulty and temptations,, with severe trials and per- 
secution. The world was enraged against Him, and 
He knew would crucify him. But He had kept near His 
Father, and discharged His trust. His disciplesHe fore- 
saw would be in like circumstances. They should en- 
counter great tribulation. Many temptations, and in- 
fluences unfavorable to t!icir hoHness, should be exerted 
against them by the world. Just as He had been His 
Father's messenger, in the midst of enemies, so would 
they be His, sent forth in the midst of wolves. He ^ 
felt exceedingly anxious for them, that their faith might 
not fail, and that their holiness should not suflcr. He 
therefore, prayed to His Father, ^^sanctify them through 
thy truth, thy word is truth,'' and as an argument with 
God to grant this His prayer, and to secure the sanc- 
tification so necessary for them. He urged the resem- 
blance, between their condition, in this world of wick- 
edness, as His messengers, and His own, as He was 
sent by his Father. 

For their sanctification, He actually devoted himself 
as a sacrificial offering to God, or as He says, sanctified 
himself that they also might be induced and enabled, 
through the word, to consecrate themselves to God, 
living sacrifices holy and acceptable to Him. *^For 
their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be 
sanctified through the truth," v. 19. Where, I ask, is 
there in all this any thing like transferring His Head- 
ship to them ] Their attainment to holiness and per- 
fection, along with all the redeemed, in the holy joys 



46 

of that blessed state, in which they all might be made 
perfect in one, He in them and the Father in Him, 
and that the world might know the reality of His mis- 
sion and the Father's love for them. This was the 
great burden of His prayer, and the subject on which 
His thoughts rested. 

And this, too, was the very same object of the desire 
He disclosed to His apostles, when, having referred them 
to their mission, w^hich required so much holiness and 
self denial and divine influences to sustain them. He 
said, ** As my Father hath sent mc, even so send I 
you." '^And when He had breathed on them'' — a most 
significant act to express the deep anxiety of His heart, 
as though He would impart His own breath and life 
to them — He said unto them, *^ receive ye the Holy 
Ghost." 

The original language is, receive ye a holy spirit. 
The article is wanting, and Dr. Middleton, an English 
rector, and learned scholar, will tell you, ** here the 
manuscripts uniformly omit the article, the meaning 
being, the injlucuce of the spirit."* 

The transaction of breathing was undeniably sym- 
bolical, and was intended to denote, that from himself, 
their Head and Saviour, their Lord and Life, should 
proceed, and they receive the influence of that Holy 
Spirit, which He, before His resurrection, had promised, 
and which was so essential, to qualify them for their 
ministry as Christ's messengers or apostles. This oc- 
curred immediately after He had said, ** as the Father 
hath sent me, even so send I you," and is exactly what 
all Presbyterians, Congregationlists, Baptists, Metho- 

*Middlcton on the Greek article, p. 207, 



47 

dists, and other Evangelical churches believe and teach 
that without the Spirit's influence, the mission and min- 
istry of bishops or presbyters will be utterly inefficient. 
Their personal holiness, and the Spirit's influence on 
their minds and hearts, sustaining them and blessing 
their ministrations, are indispensable. For these they 
must look to Jesus Christ, whose office and prerogative 
it is to impart them. Where in all this then, is there 
the most remote appearance of Christ's having endow- 
ed them with the Spirit, by any personal imparting or 
official trust, for their conveying or communicating to 
others? 

You evidently understand and preach, that the whole 
transaction was intended so to teach. It is one of the 
foundations on which your argument rests. But it re- 
quires vastly different and more conclusive proof, than 
you have attempted, or than any of your denomination 
have ever furnished. 

What you adduce is gratuitous assertion. *'In this 
transaction," you say, "they were raised up to the 
very same office which Jesus Christ himself held. I 
mean that which belonged to him in His human nature, 
as head and governor of His church. They were to 
supply His place in this respect. Full power was given 
to them, viz: the eleven, (for Judas had fallen from 
his apostleship,) to set in order the things that w^ere 
wanting in the church, and in short, to do every thing 
which Christ avould have done, had He continued on 
the earth." It is unequivocally denied, that any such 
things were done in the transaction referred to. A 
Bishop's declaration has no authority, either as an ar- 



48 

gument, or canon, with us Presbyterians. We must 
have something better than his ipse dixit. 

Having failed egregiously in your proof, that Christ's 
headship has ever been transferred, you fail as much 
in your attempt to prove, that it was transferred to 
the apostles. Your argument is the following: ** they 
were selected by the Saviour to be with him, as His 
constant attendants and ministers, to preach the gospel. 
They had also, power to baptize, for it is said by St. 
John, that Jesus himself baptized not, but His disciples. 
This was their first commission. '' It is denied that 
ever they received a commission to administer the sa- 
crament of Christian baptism till just before Christ's 
ascension, J\Iat., xxvii, 18-20, which commission was 
one of the acts of His sovereignty as S.uprcme Head of 
His church. There is no more proof that the baptism 
of the apostles before the ascension of Christ, was chris- 
tian baptism, than that John the Baptist's was. But 
take it your own way, and you rank the apostles in 
this their *' first commission, '^ with the seventy disci- 
ples; for no one that reads ^Mat.y ix, 37; x, IG, and 
compares it with Luke, x, 1-16, can discover any dif- 
ference in llic object, nature, and extent of their com- 
mission. ^'Afterwards/' you say, '' they received au- 
thority to commemorate our Lord's sacrifice on the 
cross, when He directed them, at His last supper, to do 
as He had done; that is, to bless the elements of bread 
and wine in remembrance of Him. '^ This was their 
second commission." 

From which one of the Evangelists did you learn 
that the apostles were directed or commissioned by the 
Lord, *4o bless the elements of bread and wine in re- 



41 

membrance of him." There is nothing like it in Mat- 
thew, Mark, Luke or John ! Nor in the commission 
which the Lord afterwards, by special revelation, gave 
to Paul! It is surprising, with what looseness you ex- 
press yourself, and how in your paraphrases of scrip- 
ture, you assign meaning to :he language of the sacred 
writers, which cannot be sustained by any correct prin- 
ciples of biblical exegesis. 

But you advance to a third, and still a fourth com- 
mission. Indeed, you ought to have had a fifth, to 
make the series complete. *' This," you say, '^ was 
again enlarged prior to the ascension of our Saviour. 
He then declared to them that all powder was given to 

' him in heaven and on earth, and therefore none could 
([uestion or deny His right to transfer or delegate His 
authority. He, tlierefore, said to ihe apostles, as my 

I Father hath sent me," &c. Now, sir, truth requires 

( me to say, He did no such thing. What He said about 
His authority in heaven and on earth, is found in Mat.^ 

' XX, 18-20, and not in Jolin^ xx, 2L You have taken 
the preface and foundation of the apostle's commission 
in Matthew, to preach the gospel, baptize and teach the 
nations His commands, and though not adduced as a 
quotation, yet made it the preface and foundation of 
his procedure — noticed in John^ xx, 21 — in intimating 

I to them their mission, breathing on then), saying re- 
ceive the Holy Ghost, and declaring that he would 

\ sanction their exercise of church censure or discipline, 
under the guidance of His holy spirit — the utmost of 
what He means, and of what the apostles ever attemp- 
ted, in the way of their remitting and retaining sins. 
The two transactions were not the same. There is 
5 



50 

no proof at all that they occurred on the same occasion. 
You are not at liberty to assume that they were or 
did, and, therefore, either you should have proved them 
identical or referred to Matthew, xx. 16-20, as their 
fourth commission, before the fifth and full and final one 
on the day of Pentecost, when you say they got full 
power. 

Beside, you confound the meaning of words, and use 
transfer and delegate as synonymous. On this assumed 
identity of meaning, you claim for Christ a right to do 
what we deny He did, and what, for your argument, it 
is indispensable you should show He did. You will 
not find these words used synonymously in any correct 
writer. 

It does not follow, that, because Christ may have a 
right to delegate authority in this, or the other respect, 
to His apostles, therefore^ as you assume. He has ac- 
tually transferred the whole of His earthly Headship to 
the apostles. You certainly will not indorse, such lo- 
gic, or such exegesis, or such theology. 

The comparison you institute between the descent 
of the Holy Spirit on Christ, at His baptism by John, 
and the apostles' consecration to their office, betrays the 
same looseness of logic, theology and scriptural inter- 
pretation. Having assumed that *^ the apostles were 
admitted to the exercise of this power, (of Christ's Head- 
ship,) in the very same manner in which our Lord en- 
tered upon His office," and having noted the point of 
resemblance^ not the sameness of manner, to have been 
in the fact that '' He did not enter upon His duties as a 
public teacher, until the Holy Ghost fell upon him and 
anointed him for the office," you add, " hence St. Paul 



51 

says, no man iaketh this honor unto himself^ hut he that 
is called of God^ as was Aaron. So also Christ glori- 
fied not himself to be a high priest, but He that said unto 
him, thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee,'' The 
two subjects arc as widely difierent, as the poles are 
distant, from each other. Paul did not say, wliat you 
quote from liim, in view of what you assert. It was 
nol htnce at all tiiat he made that remark, nor from 
any such like considerations; nor can you make Paul's 
meaning in Hebrews to How hence at all. 

The apostle is comparing the priesthood of Christ, 
with that of Aaron and of Melchiscdec, and not the 
ATOSTLESHip, of Christ, and of His beloved disciples. 
You assume their identity, and found your argument 
on that assumption. We utterly deny their identity 
or even resemblance, and in due season, when your 
argument leads the way, shall show that it is not a de- 
nial without cogent reasons. 

What you say about 'Mhe actual visible setting apart 
of Chiist, and of the apostles for their office," I do not 
fully understand, though I have tried to ascertain your 
meaning. You say, '^ they were not to enter upon the 
duties of the office which Christ had transferred to 
them, until they had received, in di full and open man- 
ner, the Holy Ghost. Prior to the ascension of the 
Saviour, they had received the power to act as apostles, 
but not the gifts necessary to fit them for discharging 
the duties connected with the office. The former, viz: 
\\\e power, was given when Christ breathed on them, 
and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost — the latter, viz: 
the gifts, on the day of Pentecost. Hence, they were 
commanded not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait 



5« 

for the promise of the Father, \vliich, saith Christ, ye 
have heard of rne. The Holy Ghost descended on the 
Saviour at His baptism, and he declared that the apos- 
tles should also be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not 
many days hence, which took place, as I have already 
remarked, on the day of Pentecost.'' 

What distinction there is between '^powei" to act as 
apostles,'' nnd gifts necessary \o fit them for discharg- 
ing tlic duties connected tcith the office,^^ it is for you to 
show. According to your own showing, the apostles 
were not qualified for the discharge of their duties, as 
apostles, till they had received the miraculous gifts of 
the Spirit. '* Their power was enlarged," you say, 
*' on three different occasions/' but not until the day of 
Pentecost, did they receive the full power which Christ 
possessed ;'' yet, you say, that prior to the day of Pen- 
tecost, /?/// power was given to them ! 

What that full power is, you have not told us. At one 
time, it is the office; at another time, the Holy Ghost; 
at another, the gifts of miracle?; at another, the minis- 
terial gifts; and at another, the broad seal of heaven to 
their commission. We must have something much 
more definite than all this. You seem to be at a loss 
in defining it yourself, though claiming to exercise it. 
And no wonder ! for it is enough to make any frail 
mortal giddy, and to turn the head of any one who 
thinks he possesses and presumes to exercise it. And 
that you must have been bewildered by it. is mr,nifest; 
for after having told us of the threefold commission of 
the apostles, and of their public visible introduction to 
the apostolic office on the day of Pentecost, you add: 
<^and to place the power the Saviour transferred to 



53 

j ihem beyond all dispute, and that every one might re- 
cognize the right to rule and govern the church, He 
further declared to them, I appoint unto you a king- 
dom, as my Father, hath appointed unto me. Here, 
then, we have the foundation of the christian ministry. 
This solemn transfer of our Saviour's power to the 
apostles, to govern and rule the church, was the broad 
seal to their commission to preach the gospel." It was 
long before the day of Pentecost that the Saviour gave 
notice of appointing to the apostles; a kingdom and the 
time when they should be put in possession of it also, 
is distinctly declared — not at the day of Pentecost — not 
in this world — but only at the day of judgment. See 
Mat., xix, 28 ; Luke, xxii, 30, the verse next to that 
you quote; Rev,, ii, 26 and iii, 21, whence you will 
learn that the kingdom is something very different from 
a *^ Bishop's throne." 



5* 



LETTER V. 

feVlSCOPAL CLAIM TO Tlir. PRTK.STHOOD, AMj THE NATURE OF 

oiidixation. 

Rev. and dear .sir : 

You are careful to assert, that the power of Christ's 
headship was not transferred to others besides the apos- 
tles. Having shown that you have failed to prove it 
was transferred to the apostles, your denial of it to 
others, would not have demanded any attention from 
Us, had it not been for the use you attempt, in common 
with all who claim such lofty power for prelates, to 
make of the case of the seventy disciples commissioned 
by Jesus Christ. Although obscurely done, yet your 
object, following in the track of the great body of prela- 
^ 'tical writers, evidently is, to draw a comparison be- 
tween the priesthood of the Jewish, and the ministry of 
the christian church. You say, *'the seventy who had 
been sent out by the Saviour to preach, had no part in 
it. They were not mentioned, as their commission 
had expired prior to the crucifixion of Christ. But you 
will observe, that so long as the Saviour exercised the 
office of High Priest, and before He transferred it to 
the Apostles, immediately preceding His ascension, 
there were three grades in the ministry, as was the 
case in the Church under the Jewish dispensation. 
Christ — the High Priest; the Apostles — the priests; 
and the seventy — the Levites. The Apostles did not 
reach the highest grade, so long as the Saviour exer- 



5B 

cised any ministerial authority on the earlh, but were 
raised up to it as He was about returning to heaven. 
They then stood as His representatives, and arranged 
the ministry, as will hereafter appear, after the model 
which He himself had followed, viz: in accordance 
with the ministry of the Church as it existed prior to 
His coming." 

All this is assertion. And what is worse, it is made 
on the faith of prelatical writers, without the least 
shadow of evidence from the sacred scriptures ; yea, 
with glaring evidence to the contrary ! Where is the 
proof that Christ ever consummated on earth, the duties 
of the office of High Priest'? And where, that, having 
done so, and having transferred it to the apostles, He 
left the oilice behind Him ? The apostle Paul, in the 
most explicit manner, asserts that He is now discharg- 
ing, in heaven, the functions of that oHice.* The func- 
tions of that ollice are such that they cannot be fully 
discharged on earth. ''If He were on earlh," says the 
apostle most unequivocally, *' He would not be a priest, 
seeing that there are priests that oiler gifts according 
to the law." Ilch.y viii, L He interfered not while on 
earth, with the functions of the .Jewish high priest, nor 
with any of the Aaronical priesthood. The law or- 
dained them, and they were t3^pes of Himself. He re- 
spected them in the discharge of their official duties. 
The sphere of Hispriesthood lies not in the earthly tem- 
ple, but in heaven. For not until he returned thither 
did he commence some of the more important func- 
tions of His office as **High Priest of our profession," 

*See Heb., ij, 17 ; Ui, 1 ; iv. 14-16; vli, ^4^28 



I 



67 



How absurd, therefore, to talk of His transferring His 
office of High Priest, to the apostles. 

The iinscriptural character of such a pretence, ap- 
pears to me even more shocking than its absurdity. 
For what, I ask, were the duties and functions of the 
High Priest? Paul shall answer, who has fully dis- 
cussed this subject in his epistle to the Hebrews. To 
him, but to no prelate on earth, will we go for instruc- 
tion in this matter. "Every high priest is ordained to 
offer gifts and sacrifices. Hcb.^ viii, 3. *' Every high 
priest taken from among men is ordained for men in 
things pertaining to God, that lie may offer both gifts 
and sacrifices for sins. He ought, as for the people, so 
also for himself, to offer for sins.'^ IlrJ)., v, 1-3. *' A 
merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to 
God. to viake reconciliation for the sins of the people. 
Heb., ii, 17. The appropriate, peculiar, emphatic duty 
of the Jewish priesthood, therefore, it appears from the 
sacred scriptures, was to offer sacnfces for sins. You 
will not pretend, that this is the duty of the Episcopal 
priests, or in any way forms a function of their olHce. 
Should you for one moment imagine it, the apostle 
I Paul will quickly rebuke the fancy. Every priest, says 
he, standeth daily ministering, and otlering, oftentimes, 
! the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 
but this man, (Jesus Christ,) after he had offered one 
i sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the ri^hi hand 
I of God, from henceforth expecting, till His enemies be 
I made His footstool, for by one offering He hath per- 
fected forever them that are sanctified." Heb.y^, 11- 
14. It is not, therefore, in the appropriate functions 



S8 

of the priest's office, that you can trace the analogy 
between Jewish and Episcopal priests. 

It is through Jesus Christ, our high priest, now of- 
ficiating in Heaven, that we draw nigh to God. If 
we are to have high priests on earth and priests below 
thenn, we would be removed to a greater distance from 
the throne of grace, than were the ancient Jews. Our 
privileges are diminished. You will not claim to be the 
medium of access to God, through whom acceptable 
worship is to be rendered, as was the High Priest. 
Jesus Christ will contradict you. It must consequent- 
ly be in the three orders that you trace the analogy. 
You have not, however, stated this distinctly, hav- 
ing traced the analogy only while Christ was on the 
earth, and had the subordinate ministry of the seventy 
disciples, which n)inistry, nevertheless, you say, in 
contradiction to some of your Episcopal writers, ex- 
pired by its own limitation. We are left to infer from 
what you say, that the apostles were advanced to the 
highest grade, that is, to the high priesthood of Jesus 
Christ — that after them, came the Bishops, who, you 
say, are their successors — and that the Episcopal 
priests correspond with the Jewish priests, and the 
Episcopal deacons with the Levites. This is the argu- 
ment of prelatical writers generally, some of whom 
pronounce it demonstrative; others, presumption; oth- 
ers, probability. 

In reply to this argument, it is affirmed, in the boldest 
and most unqualified manner, that the New Testament 
writers, in no instance whatever, run a comparison be- 
tween the rank, office and duties of the priestly minis- 
try of the Old Testament and the ministry of the New, 



Let the passage where they do it, be produced. Nei- 
ther do they even intimate, that the priests under the 
law, were a type of the ministry of the gospel. They 
were types of Jesus Christ, and of the effects of His 
mediation, but not of His ministers. What Paul says, 
Heb.^ viii, 5, of the priests under the law, *'Who serve 
unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,''^ set- 
tles this point. The heavenly things of which he 
speaks, as the whole context shows, are not the minis- 
try of the New Testament, but the substance, the real 
thing which Jesus Christ has done for ihe redemption 
of sinners by His sacrifice and intercession, and their 
blessed effects in the salvation of sinners. Neither are 
the ministry of the isew Testament ever called dis- 
tinctively, priests. The term in no solitary instance in 
the New Testament, is used as a term of office to de- 
signate the ministry, nor was it, till in the second cen- 
tury, the idea was conceived to make the christian con- 
form to the Jewish church. It w^as used for increasing 
the power of the clergy.* In the cases where it is meta- 
phorically used, 1 Pet., ii, 9, and Rev., i, 6, it designates 
ithe whole body of the redeemed — private members as 
well as public functionaries of the church, and has re- 
ference to a different state of things entirely, than to 
the rights, functions, duties, and relations to the visible 
Church, of an order of her ministry. 

There is not the slightest shadow of a warrant for 
designating, the communion table as the altar, and its 
elements of bread and wine as a sacrifice. Not a note 
or breathing of priesthood or of priest, of altars or of 

*See Moslieim's Ecclesiastical History, v. I, pp. 117, 118, 133. 
Wallonis Messalini, De Episcopis and Presbyteris Dis3., p. 162. 



60 

sacrifices, nor any sacrificial language and ceremonies 
pertaining to divine worship and the sacraments, to 
which the Hierarchy are so attached, are to be found in 
the New Testament. These, in your ritual are mere 
empty names, having been retained in your liturgy; 
adopted at a time when there was as much popery in 
the Church of England, as there was before Henry the 
VIII — the first distinctively supreme head of the church- 
quarrelled with his holiness the pope. 

The Roman is by far the most consistent. He makes 
the terms priest, altar, sacrifice, as fully significant, 
when applied to the New Testament ministry and sa- 
craments, as they v/ere when used to denote the Jew- 
ish. The Council of Trent have not accommodated 
the meaning of the words — retaining the names and 
discarding ih.e substance — but boldly affirmed, that 
there is no real difierence between the sacrifice ot 
Christ, on the cross, and in the mass — the difl^erencc 
being only circumstantial, the one an offering made by 
Himself, the oilier by the the Ministry of the Priest.* 
Such ground you cannot take, although the tendency 
that way is very strong, among the Oxford Tractators 
and their advocates, both in Great Britain and in the 
United States. 

Where, then, do you find the analogy between the 
Jewish priesthood and the christian ministry? Simply 
in the three orders : 

Type or Shadow. Anti-type oi' Substance. 

High Priest— Jesus Christ. High Priest— Bishop. 

Priests. Priests. 

Levites. Deacons. 

*Hist. Concil, Lib. 6, p. 465 



61 

*' Who that intended to institute a set of resemhlan- 
ces, would ever dream of appointing a numerous body 
of Levites to represent a numerous body of deacons — 
a numerous body of priests to represent another nu- 
merous body of priests ; and then finish by putting at 
the head of his system, a single high priest, to represent 
an order of ten thousand bishops \ Nay, if the Epis- 
copal argument here is sound, it concludes much more 
forcibly in favor of the papal than of the Hierarchy of 
*• the Protestant Episcopal Church.'' The former pos- 
sesses in her single pontiff*, an essential feature of the 
type, which the latter, by her order of Bishops, has 
perfectly obliterated. ''"^ It was well and answerably 
asked by the late Dr. Mason, when comparing the Jew- 
ish priesthood and the Episcopal orders, ^^ now in what 
do they resemble each other ? Did the High Priest or- 
dain the priests'? No. Did he confirm the people \ 
No. Had he the exclusive right of government \ No. 
On the other hand: Do the Bishops discharge any duty 
analogous to the offering up of the yearly sacrifice on 
the great day of expiation \ No. Have they the pe- 
culiar privilege of entering into the immediate presence 
of God? No. Is the order of God attached to their 
persons ? or have they any special right of declaring 
the Divine wiin No. He who has sagacity enough 
to detect, in the appropriate functions of the High 
Priests, any thing that deserves to be called a type of 
the functions appropriated to a Christian Bishop, can 
never be at a loss for types and anti-types, so long as 
any two objects remain within the Bible or without it. 
Their prerogatives and offices are so absolutely dis- 

*Christian Magazine, v. I, p. 314. 

6 



62 

similar, that to make one an image of the other, is to 
pour overwhelming ridicule upon the whole system of 
typical ordinances. The success will not be much bet- 
ter, if we go down to the second and third grades of 
the priesthood. If the reader has an hour which he 
cannot employ more profitably, he may throw it aw^ay 
in hunting for likenesses between the priests of the law 
and of the gospel, between the Levite and the Episco- 
pal Deacon. "=^ 

Yet, with all this absolute dissimilarity in function? 
and duties, you have asserted, that Jesus Christ trans- 
ferred his office of High Priest to the Apostles; and 
made it part and parcel of your argument to prove, that 
He gave to the Apostles only *'thc power He had re- 
ceived of the Father." You say '^ this point then is 
clearly settled, that the Apostles held the only ministry 
which was of Jesus Christ. Not only the power to 
rule and govern the Church, but of course, it must also 
follow, to continue the same power. If not, there never 
has been any authorized ministry in the church, and all 
who profess to be commissioned as embassadors of 
Christ, are gross iMrosTORs. There can be no escape 
from such a conclusion.'' Not so fast, my dear sir. 
Escape is the easiest thing imaginable. You seem to 
have been startled yourself at your boldness, as though 
you had probably gone too far ; for you add in the very 
next breath, '^ for I have endeavored to show you, on 
the authority of the w^ord of God, that Christ gave tlie 
power v)hich He had received of the Father^ only to the 
Jlpostles.^' Now, something more than ^^ endeavor \o 
show," this was necessary ; especially, when you so 

• Cliristian Magazine, v. I, p. 320. 



4l 



63 

boldly affirm, that escape is impossible from the odious 
conclusion, to which you design, by your argument, to 
shut up all non-Episcopally ordained ministers, viz : 
the admission of their being nothing but *^gross impos- 
tors." You may say you did not name me; nor say 
any thing against me ; and profess personal regard as 
heretofore ; but you meant us all. You have raised 
the cry of impostors^ against all of us, who have not 
been ordained, by those who you say are the only true 
ministry, the lineal successors of the Apostles. I would 
much rather a man should call me an impostor, a thief, 
or a knave, at once, in an open manly manner, than to 
publish such a description of me as would characterize 
me by my known favored opinions, and as would cause 
I every one else to understand, that you regarded, and 
could not but regard, me as an impostor, a thief, and 
*,« knave, and that they ought also to do so, and then 
(when called to account for such covert charsres, to sav 
I in the true spirit of cowardice, why, sir, I did not name 
^ you. 

I am not so blind as not to perceive that the charge 
jjyou have made, applies to me, just as truly as if my 
'name had been mentioned. Nor am I vain enough ; 
nor able, on the ground of personal professions of friend- 
I ship ; nor at all because of them, disposed to regard my- 
\ srelf as separated from my brethren. The libel, I use the 
^ word in the ecclesiastical sense, is so drawn up, that 
i you and your friends, and all who think with you, may 
^ fill the blank with whatever name best pleases you. 
You have made a supposition, which you really be- 
lieve ; and on the alledged, and as you say demonstra- 
ted proof of that charge, you denounce Presbyterian, 



c 



64 

Methodist, Baptist, Congregational ministers, " gross 
IMPOSTORS." You have made an unquahfied remark. 
You have not even thought it proper, to guard against 
the force of the allegation you have hurled against us, 
by the admission, that ignorance might save us from 
the charge of intended deception. Your neglect to do 
so makes the charge more palpable and direct, for you 
must be aware, that the design to deceive is an essen- 
tial item of the proof, necessary to convict us, of being 
gross impostors. Your knowledge of criminal jurispru- 
dence, I should have thought, would have made you 
more cautious. If you do not believe that we are all 
gross impostors, your whole argument and discourse are 
fictitious ; for you sny, the conclusion unavoidably 
flows, from the premises w^hich you affirm and know, 
we do utterly deny — rejecting, as we do, the ordination 
you have attempted to prove to be essential to the only 
true ministry. 

Surely, you do not think, that wc will sit still under 
such a charge, and allow the whole weight of your in- 
fluence, with your people and the pubHc — to strike from 
beneath us our foundations — to destroy the popular con- 
fidence in us as ministers of Jesus — and to hold us forth 
to the scorn of the church and world, as gross im- 
postors ! Your immediate friends may attempt to con- 
strue this defence into an attack, and make a false issue 
before the minds of the public between us ; but it will 
not do. You are the assailant — assailant by the whole- 
sale ; and to attempt to secure sympathy, by construing 
me to be the accuser, is altogether loo weak and disin- 
genuous for me to think that you will undertake to do. 
I am persuaded you will not retreat in this way, but 



65 

that either you are prepared, to substantiate fully, the 
charge you have made, or, that you will take back the 
offensive expressions, and acknowledge that they were 
rashly and inconsiderately used. 

You cannot think, that after such language, and un- 
recalled, we can well be deceived by the weak pretence 
that you respect us non-Episcopally ordained ministers 
as men and christians, and would not append the name 
of any one of us to the general accusation. For, should 
you make this plea ; either it would prove that you do 
not, after all, believe and act upon your ow^n favorite 
doctrine of the succession; or, you must withdraw the 
.charge and amend it by substituting that of venial igno- 
rance ; or, admit, that you profess and teach, that good 
christians, whom you respect and love, are nevertheless 
gross impostors — one of the three. 

Because we Presbyterians and others, whom, it is 
said, you actually, in your discourse, named and clas- 
sed with -Mormons, will not admit — that Jesus Christ 
has transferred His headship in the church on earth, to 
the Apostles — or to Episcopal Bishops — or that He has 
given them the sole power to rule and govern the 
church, except as they should continue the same pow- 
ler — or that the three orders of your clergy, correspond 
with the Jewish priesthood, and were, in fact, typified 
jby it, when we cannot find one iota of resemblance be- 
tween them in any respect whatever — or that the Apos- 
tles have transmitted the power of Christ's headship, 
Ion the earth, and of His high priesthood, too, through 
the Bishops, as the sole channel through which power 
or authority to preach His gospel and to act as His em- 
bassadors, can flow — therefore, forsooth, we, who sav 
6# 



66 

we are embassador for God, and pray men in Christ's 
stead to be reconciled unto God, are verily gross im- 
postors, and there is no possibility of escape for us from 
such a conclusion ! Verily, the scowl of the community 
ought to be upon us ! Every upright and godly man 
ought to shun us! You have hissed upon us, the dogs 
of war. It is marvelous that any decent person would 
attend on our ministrations! and yet more marvelous, 
that there is not an universal rush from our churches, 
where such imposition is played ofl', into the ** ark of 
safety," the Episcopal Church ! 

But these dogs do not bark. We are not placed in 
such dreadful straits. The cords of your argument are 
no better than the Lilliputians, and we are not even 
aware that they bind us. There is not a single posi- 
tion of your argument which you have proved. The 
assumptions on which it is based, or which are involved 
in it, are equally without evidence, and have been pro- 
ved by us, to be fallacious. We laugh at the idea of 
there being no authorized ministry in the Church ; and 
of all being gross impostors, but those who have their 
commission from the Apostles' successors, to whom 
Christ's Headship has been transferred. 

We account the whole thing to be just as ridiculous 
as it is usurpations, and will tell you how we obtained 
our commission, and how we believe every true min- 
ister of Jesus Christ, must get his, too, who would not 
be found running without being sent. But previously, 
allow me to say, that w^hile I repel, as I think, with de- 
served severity, the charge of gross imposition brought 
against all of us who have not been Episcopally ordain- 
ed, I take pleasure to acquit your heart from any design 



67 

to slander us. I prefer to think, that you have been 
betrayed into rash expessions by your argument, and 
have said, as the Bisho[), and in your zeal for the Bish- 
op's powers, what you will unsay as the christian, for 
whom, though I censure your language, and condemn 
your argument, and repel your accusation, I still will 
entertain a kind regard. 

The supreme power or headship of Jesus Christ on 
earth, has never been parted with by Him. See Rev,, 
ii, 1 ; iii, 7, 14, and CoL, i, 12. He is still the head of 
His bod}^ — the church. It is His prerogative, as in the 
days of His flesh, to call to that work, the ministers of 
His gospel. This He does, by the special influence of 
the Holy. Spirit, vouchsafed to them, whom He will 
have to serve him in His gospel — inclining their minds 
and hearts to the work — affecting them with right mo- 
tives and views — pressing them with a sense of ob!ii:;a- 
tion — endowing themi with appropriate gifts and quali- 
fications, imparted by His Spirit, and in His provi- 
dence — and leading them to the sphere of labor He has 
allotted to them. 

It is His, and His exclusive prerogative, to call and 
commission His own embassadors. What a ridiculous 
idea, that they can be His embassadors, who are not ap- 
pointed and sent by himself! Bishops or Presbyters 
have not the power or authority to constitute any one 
an embassador of Jesus Christ. He does this, in the 
first instance, by His divine call and the influence of 
His Holy Spirit. All offering to enter the ministry, 
must claim to be called of Jesus Christ. 

To prevent all imposition in this matter, Jesus Christ 
has given authority to His church to examine the ere- 



68 

dentials of those who claim to be His ministers, and 
prescribed the requisite qualifications as a rule of judg- 
ment, by which they shall determine, in all cases, 
whether the call is genuine ; whether the person shall 
be recognized as an embassador of Jesus Christ ; and 
whether his credentials shall be indorsed as genuine. 
The ministry are the most competent judges in this 
matter, and, after ihe example of the apostles, they 
examine and see, whether this and the other man, who 
says he has a call from God to preach His gospel, has 
indeed been so called. In order so to judge, they must 
examine whether he possesses — the requisite evidences 
of piety — right views of the ministry — right motives 
for entering into it — proper ([ualifications for discharg- 
ing its duties — i. e., whether he meets in every respect, 
the rule laid down in the instructions given by insi>ira- 
tion on this subject, and according to which, a judgment 
is to be passed in favor of those who say they are called 
of God to preach His gospel. 

The right of judging in this matter, according to law, 
is an inalienable right of the church of God. To the 
ministry, it ever has been confided, as to the represen- 
tatives alike, of Jesus Christ, and of His people. In 
Episcopal, Presbyterian and Congregational churches, 
it is substantially the same. According to your muni- 
cipal regulations — the views of church government, you 
prefer — this work of judging is assigned to the Bishop 
and his helps : his assistant priests. In the Presbyte- 
rian churches — to a Presbytery, a permanent body of 
ministers and their helps : and in Congregational chur- 
ches, to a council of ministers called for that purpose. 
When the candidate is judged to be truly called of God 



69 

and qualified to preach the gospel, ordination follows, 
which is but indorsing the man's commission, received 
from Jesus Christ — saying to the churches, that they 
have examined it and found it genuine, and recognize 
and set him apart before the eyes of the church, as one 
called of Jesus Christ, and commissioned to preach 
His gospel. The laying on of the hands, whether of 
Bishop, Presbytery, or council, is but the public, for- 
mal mode of authenticating his commission, and an ex- 
pression of the entire cordiality with which he is greet- 
ed and caressed, when God is implored by them for 
His blessing, and presence and spirit, to be with him. 
It is not the Bishop, or Presbytery, or council, that 
transfer the authority. Christ confers that Himself, 
and they, do but express their judgment ; and as the 
publicly constituted judges in the matter, introduce the 
man whom they have judged to be duly called and cho- 
sen of Jesus Christ to preach his gospel, and to be wor- 
thy of the confidence of the churches, as His accredited 
embassador. 

These are not the positions of non-Episcopalians on- 
ly. Your own church teaches, and your book of com- 
mon prayer recognizes, them. You are made to in- 
terrogate the Deacons and Priests thus: *'Do you trust 
that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take 
upon you this office, and ministration ] &c. Do you 
think that you are truly called according to the will of 
our Lord Jesus Christ ] Do ijou think in your heart 
that you are truly called, according to the will of our 
Lord Jesus Christ 1" &c. All your proceedings in the 
case, are but the distinct, public, formal eliciting and 
recognition of this fact. You are made to say: '* Take 



to 

thou authority," &c. It is not said from you or your 
Bishops. The thing must be interpreted by what goes 
before. It refers to Jesus Christ, and the Bishop is 
made to declare, that by the imposition of his hands, 
the office is deUvered to him. This, to explain it con- 
sistently with the scriptures, and with itself, is, but ma- 
king the Bishops act the public, formal, introduction of 
the person, as called of JesusChrist, and licensing him 
to go forward, in the exercise of authority from Jesus 
Christ, to discharge the duties of the oflice on which 
he then enters. All this is in accordance with the dic- 
tates of common sense. 

It is the supreme authority of a country that com- 
missions an embassador ; but that embassador must sub- 
mit his credentials tj those to whom he is sent, and 
have them duly authenticated ; which, when done, he 
is accounted, and proclaimed as, minister plenipotentia- 
ry among them. Our Redeemer has recognized and in- 
corporated in His church, this principle and procedure 
of common sense, lie is the supreme power, and He 
appoints his embassadors by the call of His spirit, and 
endowment of them with requisite qualifications. It is 
the right of the church and of the world, to see to it, 
that this commission is genuine. Ordination is but the 
established mode of declaring and proclaiming, that 
this and the other man is duly commissioned by Jesus 
Christ, and called, chosen and appointed to the work 
of the ministry. The authority comes direct from Je- 
susChrist. The recognition, and proclamation, of this 
commission, pertain to the appropriate judges, who 
must, in this matter, follow the law of instruction laid 
down by Christ, and which you have quoted at length. 



71 

Thus, then, you see, whence we obtain our commis- 
sions — from a much higher source than Bishops, Pres- 
byters, prelates, or kings, even from Jesus Christ him- 
self. We do not fear to have them examined — are un- 
der no apprehension of being accounted impostors; but 
appeal to the call and presence and efficacious influ- 
ence, of the Spirit of Christ, which direct and sustain 
us, and which, although investigated, and asserted ge- 
nuine, at our ordination, may be, at any subsequent pe- 
riod, examined by the church and the world. 

We prize, infinitely more, the graces of God's spirit 
in our hearts, and the fruits of that spirit attendino- our 
ministry, than the approbation of Bishops, Presbyters, 
or any others who claim to have Christ's power, and 
in His name, to rule and govern His church. You see 
also, why it is, that we treat, with so much indiffe- 
rence, yea, with utter contempt, all that is said about 
apostolic succession, as though that was the grand test 
of a man's being a genuine embassador of Jesus Christ, 
when the very idea carries absurdity on its face — an 
embassador of Christ, when Christ had no hand in his 
appointment, at all !! If the Bishop gives the power, 
Christ has no power of Headship on earth, but accord- 
ing to your doctrine, has transferred it to the Bishops. 
Your priests and deacons may be your embassadors, 
(if they have their power from you, but they are not 
'Christ's, and will not be accounted, by the churches in 
, Michigan, to be such, unless they have been called and 
< chosen of Jesus Christ, and have been qualified by the 
, gifts of His Spirit, and by other requisite endowments, 
'j for the work of His ministry. 

They will be disposed to respect your judgment, and 



72 

to confide in your examinations, as one believed to be 
competent to investigate all such pretensions, and to 
judge, along with your presbyters, whether this man 
or the other, is truly commissioned of Jesus Christ, to 
preach His gospel — no farther. Beyond this, your or- 
dinations will not be accounted valid ; and I may add, 
they will presently be distrusted altogether, if you set 
up such lofty claims — insist that you are endowed with 
the power of Christ's Headship — and by authority given 
you to rule and govern in the church, ordain men to 
the ministry. 

In so saying, there is no sanction given to fanaticism 
and confusion. We can well and truly discriminate 
between Christ's Headship, in the exercise of which 
authority. He commissions His ministers, and the com- 
mon sense usages and regulations, which the churches 
are competent to adopt, for accredi ti ng the commissions 
thus given, and for the prevention of imposture. He 
submitted His own credentials to the Jewish church, 
and proved their genuineness by His miracles. None, 
truly commissioned by Him, will be unable or unwilling 
to have theirs too, examined, and approved by compe- 
tent judges. More than this you cannot plead as per- 
taining to ordination, without speaking unscripturally, 
unintelligibly. 

We do, therefore, utterly deny the very foundation 
on which you build your doctrine of lineal succession 
and sacramental ordination. Your Bishops are not 
High priests, nor are your Presbyters priests. The 
analogy was used to increase the power of an ambi- 
tious Hierarchy.*^ It fails in every particular, and in 

♦Murdock's translation of Mosheim, v. I, p. 117. 



73 

none nnore so than the essential one. The Jewish 
priesthood was confined to one family — ^.the family of 
Aaron; whereas yours has no family claims, but follows 
a very different law of succession. The line of their 
succession was identical with that of natural descent. 
The geneological table was to be carefully preserved 
and consulted, and the proof of a man's birth of the 
family of Aaron, w^as essential to establish his right 
and call to the priesthood. Could you prove that Jesus 
Christ called Peter and Paul and the other apostles to 
be His priests^ and, as in the case of Aaron, that their 
families ever after ihem, in all their generations, w^ere 
to be esteemed such, the analogy would have deserved 
some respect ; but so far from this being the fact, the 
doctrine of succession is of a far more subtle character. 
The procreating process of your succession is to be 
done by some hocus-pocus mysterious sacramental in- 
fluence — in other words, must be carried on by a cer- 
tain vis insita flowing through the Bishops' hands, whose 
nascent properties, which do not and cannot demon- 
strate themselves as satisfactorily as in the successive 
generations of Aaron's sons, must be taken as a matter 
of blind faith or credulity by all good churchmen. It 
was to be sure, the only substitute appropriate to a 
priesthood avowing celibacy, with whom the doctrine 
^originated ; but it is too utterly ridiculous to liken or- 
dination by the hands of a Bishop, in regular descent 
from Peter or Paul, to the propagation and transmis- 
,sion of the Aaronic Priesthood, which must be done to 
jmake the analogy complete. 

I The generating virtue of a Bishop's hands must en- 
|counter so many accidents, and there are so many 
7 



74 

things to neutralize and nullify it altogether — the least 
departure from essential forms, according to the theo- 
ry of its most zealous advocates and defenders, destroy- 
ing it altogether — that amidst accumulating improba- 
bilities of the genuineness of the sacramental virus to 
be transmitted, it has become absolutely impossible to 
demonstrate or establish the succession. I refer you to 
Dr. Whately's calculation, who, although but an Arch- 
bishop himself, treats with perfect contempt the idea of 
apostolic succession. 

Suppose the probability of an unbroken succession, to 
be as 100 to one in each separate case, in favor of the 
legitimacy and regularity of the transmission, and the 
links to amount to 50, (or any other number,) the pro- 
bability of the unbroken continuity of the whole chain, 
must be computed as 99-100 of 99-100 of 99-100, &c., 
to the end of the whole fifty !^ 

Such trifles and superstition, I rejoice to think, can 
never deceive sound Protestants, whether in or out of 
the Episcopal church. I feel persuaded that, on second 
thought, you will condemn them yourself. 

♦See Whately'8 Kingdom of Christ. 



LETTER VI. 

embarrassing results of the apostolic succession. 

Rev. and dear sir: 

You attach infinite and eternal importance to your 
doctrine of ^* succession.'' You ask, *'Had the Apos- 
tles successors?" and affirm, *Mhis I will attempt to 
prove. It is a question involving the eternal interests 
of millions — and if decided in the negative, must de- 
;stroy the christian ministry, under whatever name it 
<may be called." Who ever denied that there have 
been successors to the Apostles? The blessed Re- 
ideemer has taken care to call men by His Spirit, and 
jto employ them, in the work of preaching His Gospel, 
^from that day to the present. He has preserved a 
succession of faithful ministers, in every age, and will 
do so, to *' the end of the world." We have no fears 
about the succession, or a broken line; nor do we value 
a particle, all of the loud and lordly pretensions made 
about the line of ecclesiastical pedigree, which prelati- 
cal writers have attempted to trace up to Paul or Pe- 
ter, in their ecclesiastico-genealogical tables. The 
power to call, to appoint, and to commission the minis- 
ter of Christ, is with Hi??!, the sole a?id Sup?'eme head 
of His church, not with the Apostles, or Bishops, or 
Presbyters. 

This, you. Sir, deny; affirming that this powder of 
Christ, was transfeiTed to the Apostles^ only, and has 



76 

been handed down, by them, regularly, from one to 
another, ever since. Now, the true meaning of this is, 
and you can mean nothing else, than that the appoint- 
ing power is no longer with Jesus Christ, but vests, 
exclusively, in your Bishops, as the legitimate succes- 
sors of the Apostles, unto whom, only, Christ impart- 
ed it. It is not the blessed Redeemer, therefore, for 
Himself, but your Bishops, for Him, who make and ap- 
point His embassadors ; so that, if this or the other 
man, has not been ordained, and consecrated to office 
by the Bishop, the only power competent to appoint. 
no matter what may be the gifts of the Spirit, and 
qualifications for otlice, and holiness, which ministers 
of other denominations possess, ihcy are not ministers 
of Christ, and but ** gross iMrosTpns;*' while, on tlu 
other hand, no matter what may be the man's private 
character, or destitution of personal holiness, or utter 
disqualification for the office, if he has been Episcopal- 
]y ordained, he is a true minister of Christ, and no im- 
postor at all ! ! 

This is your meaning; you cannot mean less, and, 
that I have neither misapprehended you, nor mis-sta- 
ted your doctrine of *• succession,*' is obvious from 
w^hat you say. **I have endeavored to show you, 
from the word of God, that the Apostles were the on- 
ly individuals to whom Christ imparted the power He 
had received from His Father. If it died with them, 
and the promise, to be with them to the end of the 
worldy is to be limited to them, then, all who call them- 
selves ministers of Christ, are not only deprived of all 
power or right to preach, but also the only comfort 
which could sustain and cheer them in their arduous^ 



77 

J and, oftentimes, thankless office — the presence of the 
Saviour, through the influences of His Spirit. But 
God be thanked, we are not left to doubt on this all 
important question. We have the transfer of all min- 
isterial poioer, most clearly set forth, as given by the 
Saviour to the Apostles.*' 

You take it for granted, that Christ's presence could 
not have been with any, had He not given His head- 
ship and S])irit to the Apostles, for tliom to impart to 
others — a most fallacious and dangerous assumption ! 
He can impart that Spirit, and qualify for the ministry, 
and vouchsafe His presence, without the imposition of 
• a Bishop's hands. He actually did so in the case of 
I Paul, after that, you say, He had transferred the earth- 
' ly headship of His church, to the Apostles, and after 
they had appointed Matthias to fill the vacancy occa- 
sioned by the apostacy and death of Judas. This you 
' must admit, or you must confess that Paul was never 
regularly ordained an Apostle, till nearly three years 
after his conversion, when *^ Simeon, that was called 
Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen," laid their 
hands on Barnabas and Paul, and made them both 
Apostles together — a conclusion, wiiich, while some 
Episcopal writers have admitted. Bishop H. U. Onder- 
donk, and others in this country, will not, because it 
I would recognize the higher consecration by the lower 
'order — the Apostolic Bishop by Presbyters. 

It is a matter of perfect indiflerence which conclu- 
y sion you prefer. If you say that Paul was called, and 
I commissioned by Christ himself, what becomes of your 
I line of succession? For, according to your bold and 
j unqualified statement, long before his conversion and 



78 

call to the ministry, " All ministerial power'' — all the 
power of Chrises earthly headship, had been transferred 
to the eleven Apostles, only, who first appointed Mat- 
thias, and from whom thereafter, all true power and 
authority to preach the Gospel, must be traced. It will 
not help you, to say, that Paul's appointment was by a 
direct and miraculous interposition of Jesus Christ; for 
if so, then you falsify your assertion, '' that the Apos- 
tles, (you cannot possibly explain or qualify your as- 
sertion to mean any other than the eleven Apostles,) 
^* were the only individuals, to whom Christ imparted 
the power he had received from His father." 

Besides, you are very careful to tell us, that, what- 
ever of the miraculous, in imparting the power to work 
miracles, occurred on the day of Pentecost, when the 
apostles received ** ministerial ability to fit them'' for 
the duties of their office, it ** in no way aflbcts the ar- 
gument" — which we verily believe. Now one case, in 
which Jesus Christ, actually exercised His own autho- 
rity and power as the Head of His church on earth, 
and commissioned directly, without the intervention of 
the other apostles, or even consulting them, or referring 
to them, to act as His apostles, upsets all you say 
about this power of His earthly headship having been 
transferred to the apostles. You may admit it, or on 
the contrary, refer Paul to the brethren at Antioch for 
ordination, just as you please. Either admission de- 
molishes your argument, and proves how utterly in- 
consistent with fact, is your doctrine that the apostles 
had the power of earthly Headship, and they only, could 
provide and commission their successors, and they oth- 
ers after them, in the '* line of apostolic succession," 



79 

You must abandon your unqualified position, about 
Christ's transferred Headship, or you must deny, along 
with some in the Corinthian church, the apostleship of 
Paul, or you must admit Presbyterian ordination, and 
so renounce the lofty claims you set up for '* Episcopal 
Bishops," as being endowed with '^ power to act as the 
representatives of Christ,*' as the successors of the 
eleven, who, you say, '' were to set in order the things 
that were wanting in the church, and in short, to do 
every thing, which Christ would have done, had He 
continued on earth." The appointment and introduc- 
tion of Paul into the ministry, was a thing most neces- 
sary to be done for the churcb, as the event proved. 
But the apostles were so far from doing this, and Jesus 
! Christ so far from leaving it to them, that it w^as done 
without their knowledge, thus proving that Christ had 
not withdrawn His power, and presence, and spirit 
from the earth, from all other channels, except as you 
teach, they were to flow down through ''the line of 
apostolic succession." 

And now, bcfore'noticing your mode of reasoning, to 

prove that the apostles provided successors, and im- 

' parted the power of earthly Headship to them, I take 

I occasion to submit a few things on the intrinsic absur- 

; dity and folly, (I mean no personal disrespect,) of this 

I doctrine of succession, regarded and pronounced by 

you, to be the grand essential thing. It places you in 

the most emhaiTassing circumstances, and drives you to 

conclusions altogether revolting,, 

1. To be consistent, you must indorse their ecclesiasti- 
cal character, and honor, as the representatives of Jesus 
1 Qhrist, some of the very worst of men, and you must re- 



80 

ject and dishonor, as ^^ gross impostors/' some of the 
very best. On the one hand, it matters not what may 
have been the piety of such men as Luther, Knox, Cal- 
vin, Watts, Dodridge, Edwards, Davies, Nesbitt your 
grand sire, Hall, Chalmers, and hosts of other devout 
and holy men — Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, 
or Baptists, &c. — nor what evidences there may be of 
their having been divinely called of Jesus Christ to 
preach His gospel — nor what blessed fruits may have 
resulted from their tnlnistry, what numerous seals God 
may have given them, in souls converted and sinners 
saved, and what extensive good He may have wrought 
by them, in tlic church and world — if they have not 
been Episcopally ordained, by those whom you regard 
as the apostles' only legitimate successors, they are no 
true ministers of Jesus Christ, but presuming to preach 
the gospel, and to administer ordinances, are ** gross 
impostors,'' knaves and robbers, impertinent intruders, 
who have not entered into the fold by the only door, 
and whose baptisms, and other administrations of or- 
dinances, are sacrilegious ! ! ! On the other hand — 
no matter what may be a man's moral and private 
character — how ignorant, wicked, and profligate he 
may be — if he has been Episcopally consecrated, by 
those whom you call the apostles' only legitimate suc- 
cessors, he is a true minister of Christ, his ordinances 
are valid, and the line of apostolic succession through 
him, is preserved safe and unbroken ! ! ! You must not 
shrink from this prospect, and say it is an over-wrought 
picture. You know it is the fact — that blessed and 
glorious revivals of religion have accompanied the min- 
istrations of many, who have never been Episcopally 



81 

ordained — that great and marveIous"reformations have 
been wrought through their labors — that hundreds and 
thousands have been brought home to God through 
their instrumentality — and that some of the most cor- 
rupt, and odious, and abombinable in principle, spirit and 
practice — men of infamous character, wicked, ignorant, 
base and utterly depraved wretches, are to be found on 
that very list through whom you trace your unbroken 
line of succession. 

I have been informed that you were yourself rebap- 
tized, and have of late began to re-baptize Presby- 
terians, who, because they had married into your 
church, or for other reasons, had entered it; while you 
receive Roman Catholics without doing so, as having 

; been truly baptized by the priests of the apostate church 
of Rome, as Mr. Faber, and many other EpiscopaHans, 
regard her. Here is an attempt to be consistent ; but 

I it is proof of what I say. You utterly despise all the 

'tokens of Christ's presence, the fruits of His spirit, the 
seal which heaven puts upon the ministrj' of non-Epis- 
copally ordained ministers, and treat them as ** gross 
impostors," pronouncing their baptism, no baptism, and 

, their sacraments, sacrilegious, while you honor as valid, 
the baptism administered by priests claiming to derive 
their commission through the channel which you admit 

I to be the true line of succession, though comprising 
some of the most profligate and abandoned of men, such 
as Popes John 13, and John 23, and Leo 10, &c., &c. 

] We can, however, very well endure such an aflfront 

I upon our ministrations, and such a palpable profession 
of your belief that our ministry is that of '^ gross im- 
postors/' while we have the blessed spirit of God in 



83 

our churches, and blessing our ministry. Give us ihis 
seal of Heaven, and you, and all your Bishops, are at 
liberty, if it will gratify your love of consistency, to 
disown our baptism — to pronounce our sacraments sac- 
rilegious, to advise your people against partaking of 
them, and to indorse our credentials spurious. 

2. Further, ymir doctrine of ^'apostolic succession,'' 
virtually makes little or no account of the approbation of 
Jesus Christ. Provided a Bishop can keep on terms with 
his clergy and other Bishops, so that he be not disrobed 
of his office, he becomes, when once conducted into it, so 
sacred a person, that no hand can touch him, no crime 
can stain his official character, and no power deprive 
him of his rights and authority as the representative 
of Christ on earth. ^Vhat need a Bishop care, whose 
acts are all valid, and who transmits the power which 
Christ transferred, as long as he officially remains the 
representative of Christ on earth, though he should not 
be actuated by the love and fear of Jesus Christ? Who 
is to call him to account, under such circumstances? 
He has the power; and if those that gave it lo him, do 
not take it from him, who else can? The people must 
submit, and recognize, as Christ's representative, one, 
perchance, whom Jesus Christ abhors for his pride, am- 
bition, worldly mindedness and moral corruptions. 

3. This doctrine of apostolical succession, thus nat' 
urally tends to licentiousness ; for it is not to be pre- 
sumed that all Bishops fear God, and are constrained 
by the love of Christ. There is too much historical 
proof to the contrary. I am aware, you have said, 
** that the Saviour promised to give them the continual 
influences of this same (the Holy) Spirit, to keep them 



83 

from doing any act which would be wrong, and also, 
to lead them into all truth." You have been under- 
stood by the high church in your own body, to main- 
tain the infallibility of the Episcopal church. But you 
certainly do not mean to assert a claim for the moral 
infallibility of Bishops on the basis of this promise. 
You must mean their Episcopal infallibility. It is es- 
sential that such infallibility should be secured some 
how, in order to inspire confidence in their official acts. 
Will you say, that a Bishop, in his official character, 
can do no wrong ? I presume not. It is possible for 
him to err in his judgment, and ordain men to the 
Gospel ministry, who are unworthy of the office, and 
have never been called by Jesus Christ, also, to decide 
contrary to truth and right, in matters within his juris- 
diction, and injuriously to the interest of Christ's mem- 
bers and His church. Before he should be intrusted 
with such great power, some provision should be made 
for his infallibility. 

The Roman is here much more consistent. He as- 
serts the claim of infallibility, in the boldest manner; 
nor can you stop short of it, if you w^ould, with any 
fair pretence, require men to refer, to the acts of your 
Bishops, as Christ's representatives, and to the canons 
of your church, as binding on the consciences of men. 
I know nothing which can tend more powerfully to 
sanction licentiousness, than the practical influence of 
the idea, that Christ has transferred His headship, and 
parted with His power, to the Apostles and their suc- 
cessors, so that they become infallible in their official 
acts. Some prelates in the church of England, actu- 
ally advanced so far as to deny the power of Pope, 



84 

council, or any one else, to excommunicate or depose 
a Bishop — claiming to be ''once a Bishop, always a 
Bishop.'^ Let but the Bishop, or whoever they may 
be that have the powder to depose, or to take back the 
power of headship, but sustain each other, and where, 
I ask, is there power in the church, competent to call 
ihem to account, whatever may be their private char- 
acter ] If they are viciously disposed, they have but 
to look for each others countenance and support. You 
will not accuse me of stating imaginary cases. I refer 
you to the history of the Roman Hierarchy, through 
whom you trace your succession. "A doctrine,'' says 
Dr. Bangs, '-which sanctions licentiousness in the mi- 
nistry, of Jesus, cannot be true. But the doctrine of 
the succession, does this; therefore, it is not true. The 
minor proposition, which alone is susceptible of contro- 
versy, is sustained by all those examples I have cited — 
(He refers to the strife between Felix and Damasus, in 
the 4th century, for the ponlilicate and other examples 
of corruption — respecting the licentiousness of the 
Bishops of Rome — all of whom this succession sane* 
tionsas canonical Bishops, and surely stamps itself with 
the indelible impression of licentiousness. It in fact 
furnishes an apology for all those libidinous actions, 
which disgraced the priesthood, in the darker ages of 
the church." 

'• Will any man now plead, that these were the legiti- 
mate successors of the apostles, and that through their 
desecrated hands, the Episcopal mitre has been trans- 
mitted, from one to another, immaculate and uncor- 
rupt]"* You must do so, or give up the Apostolical 
succession, which you pronounce so essential. 

* Being's Original Church of Christ, pp. 252-3. 



85 

4. Another result of this doctrine is, that it deranges 
merits notions^ and introduces the most dangerous senti- 
ments, with regard to the qualifications for the ministry. 
He thai lias received the Episcopal ordination, in your 
true line of Apostolical succession, has, according to 
your doctrine, the essential qualification. Do you not 
perceive, that this exalts a test of man's devising, above 
all the moral, spiritual, and theological qualifications, 
all the gifts and graces of the Spirit, so radically im- 
portant for the right, acceptable, and successful dis- 
charge of the functions of the ministry \ That any such 
test is recognized, or even remotely hinted at, in the 
New Testament, I deny. Others are very minutely 
detailed. But, according to your doctrine, they are 
all of no value or cflicacy, without Episcopal consecra- 
tion. There can be no proof of the man's being called 
and chosen of Christ, to preach His Go.^pel, till th- 
Bishop commissions him. No wonder, therefore, thai 
cases should frequently occur, in which the Episcopal 
ministry should disparage the moral and spiritual, and 
magnify the ecclesiastical qualification. I allude to the 
foxhunting, wine drinking, theatre going, and licentious 
portion of the ministry of the Church of England. 

It is but the legitimate fruit of this doctrine, sustain- 
ed, asserted, and practically carried out, by the estab- 
lishment and the aristocracy of Great Britain, that we 
see in the following state of things there, so like to 
what may be discerned in the history of the Roman 
priesthood. '*In the case of the church of England — 
the frowns upon the zealous and devoted pastor, and 
nothing would more highly gratify the dignified and 
8 



86 

aristocratic portion of her clergy, than the expulsion 
of all the Evangelicals, as they are sneeringly called, 
from her pale/'* I give credit to many, very many, 
excellent men in that church, and rejoice to believe the 
assurance of Lord Henley, that *' in the lower ranks of 
the clergy, and more especially in the rising genera- 
tion, there is so much purity and holiness of life and 
morals, so sincere a setting forth of Evangelical (ruth, 
so strenuous a desire to perform the work of a labori- 
ous and watchful ministry, as there are at this day in the 
church of England; but,-' with him, **I cannot see any 
thing to justify us in anticipating a great national revi- 
val of religion/' The relative proportion of these god- 
ly men, is small. They are not among the sons, ne- 
phews, cousins and cousins-german, of their lordships 
or Bishops — the ofT-shoots of the nobility, which crowd 
into that church ; and therefore, while we honor the 
few, W'ho, consequent on the great revival in the En- 
glish church, which commenced in one of the colleges 
of Oxford, with young Whitfield and Wesley, and their 
associates, value the moral and spiritual qualifications, 
we cannot but refer, much of the prevalent contempt 
of these, and of the magnifying of the Episcopal suc- 
cession, among the clergy of the establishment, to this 
doctrine, as their legitimate source. 

I rejoice to think, that as yet, the Protestant Epis- 
copal church of the United States, is not to be compa- 
red, in this respect, with the church of England. But 
I forebode evil for her, if the doctrine of the Episcopal 
succession, becomes the peculiar belief of her most at- 
tached and zealous sons, and should be magnified, as 

*Book of Denominations, p. 433. 



87 

you have done, I am persuaded, unintentionally, above 
the inward call and grace of the Holy Spirit, and the 
requisite moral and spiritual qualifications for the Gos- 
pel ministry. 

5. Another result that must follow inevitably, in due 
season, from the practical operation of this doctrine, is 
the influence of superstition^ leading to an unmeaning 
and profound reverence, for the very person, of one who 
has received the marvelous consecration. It is notorious 
that this is the actual state of feeling among the papists, 
in reference to iheir priests and Bishops. They are 
looked upon as an order of Heaven's nobility here on 
earth — as God's annointed, the least disrespect or want 
of reverence for whose persons, no matter what may 

I be the destitution of personal moral w^orth, deservedly 
subjects the man who is guilty of it, to the curse of the 
priest, and to the vengeance of the Most High. True, 

( there may be, and I believe are, honorable exceptions 
— men, in that priesthood, who would not make use of 
such a superstitious regard for unholy ends, but histo- 
ry proves they are not all. Grant you the legitimate 
and full effect of this doctrine of Apostolical succes- 
sion, and it will not be long, till there ^vill be just as 
blind a reverence, among your churches, for the per- 
son of a Bishop or priest, as there is among the Roman 
Catholics. It existed and was assiduously cultivated 
in the English church. Arch-bishop Laud, one of your 
Apostolical succession, in his cruel persecutions of the 
puritans, and ambitious grasping after power and in- 
fluence, declared, that he hoped to see the day, w^hen 
the middle and lower classes of society, would not dare 
to appear with their hats on, before the clergy. Only 



88 

let men believe, that there is some peculiar sanctity 
about the person of a Bishop or Priest, something, com- 
municated and transmitted down from Jesus Christ, in 
regular succession, through the Apostles and Bishops, 
that may, and does exist, independent and irrespective 
of moral worth and spiritual qualifications, and the 
more mystery there may be thrown around the whole 
matter, the more imposing will become the sacred vest- 
ments, and the other solemn rites and forms, which 
can easily be made the means of exciting, and of pro- 
moting, a superstitious reverence for the man. 

G. I only add one other result tliat must legitimately 
flow from this doctrine of Apostolic succession. You 
will not take the ground of *'once a Bishop, always a 
Bishop," but must achnit, tliat whatever power confers 
orders, may take them away. Now, at the time of 
the Reformation, the church of Rome, through whom 
you derived your Apostolical succession, excommuni- 
cated your Protestant Bishops, and deprived them of 
their [)Ower. Was this act valid? If so, what be- 
comes of your succession? Your Bishops had no pow- 
er to transfer, for it had been taken from them ; and 
therefore, the English clmrch, and the Protestant Epis- 
copal church of the United States^ which sprttnfrfrom 
it, can he regarded as no part of the church of Christ. 
And so Rome regards you in reality. If you say that 
the act of Rome was not valid, then you must affirm 
either the inviolability of the Episcopal character, and 
as Dr. Bangs has justly said, maintain ^* that although 
a man in the sacred garb, should turn an open infidel, 
should blaspheme Jesus Christy and proclaim an irre- 



89 

conciliable war upon the entire system of Christianity, 
he must nevertheless be kept within the fold, and treat- 
ed as an immaculate shepherd f'* 

Or, if you dare not take such ground, then are you 
forced to deny the power of Rome to depose, having 
become apostate, which you cannot do, after having so 
cordially shaken hands with her as part of the Catholic 
Church; and after having declared her succession ge- 
nuine and " true/' There is nothing, then, left for you, 
but to affirm— that your Bishops, had, intrinsically, the 
gifts and qualifications which Christ imparts for the 
ministry— that their authority, in the visible church, 
grew out, of Ilis internal divine and glorious call, and of 
the fact, of their being commissioned by Him, not by 
the Roman Bishops, and of their being owned, sustain- 
ed, and blessed by the great and only head of the church, 
Christ Jesus— and that consequently, the power, which 
Rome attempted to exercise over them, was altogether 
usurpations, and without the sanction of Jesus Christ. 
This is the true and only ground you can consistently 
take ; but this annihilates, at once, your entire doctrine 
of Apostolic succession. 

What you say about the old Anglican Church exist- 
ing before the days of Augustine, reduced gradually 
but completely under the foot of a foreign Bishop, and 
so continuing "until she had the power of throwing oft' 
the foreign yoke imposed upon her," shall, in a future 
letter, be particularly noticed. At present, it is suffi- 
cient to remark, that it forms a most wonderful com- 
ment on your doctrine of Christ's Headship-power 
being transferred to the Apostles, and to their succes- 

*Original Church of Christ, p. 254. 



90 

sors, the Bishops ! It, in fact, nullifies it ; for what sort 
of power was that, which Christ transferred to the 
Apostles, and to the Bishops, their successors, in the ex- 
ercise of which, one set of Bishops, and one part of the 
church, might impose yokes on others, and oppress, and 
keep down, for centuries, till circumstances became fa- 
vorable for a revolution ? Verily, this is '* confusion 
worse confounded,'' of which we know nothing like it 
in the church of God, among those denominations which 
hold to the one only Supreme Head, Christ Jesus. But 
Solomon says, '* the legs of the lame are not equal,'' 
and such are those of ** the Apostolic succession,'' for 
it hobbles marvelously. 



I 



LETTER VII. 
the election of matthias. 

Rev. and dear sir : 

The arguments, by which you attempt to prove, that 
the Apostles transferred their power, shall now receive 
attention. The first is taken from Peter's procedure, 
recorded Jlcts^ ii, 15-26, relative to Matthias. You say, 
that, *^one of the very first acts they did, after they re- 
ceived the Apostolic office, was to transfer the very 
same power they had received from Christ.'' 

1. Now, the first thing I have to say, on this subject 
is, that there is no proofs that the other Apostles co- 
operated with Peter in the transaction of selecting Mat- 
thias to take the place of Judas. They may, or they 
may not have been present. All that we know on the 
subject, is, that there were about one hundred and 
twenty disciples, men and women, who co-operated 
with him. ^' In those days, Peter stood up in the midst 
of the disciples, (not Apostles,) and said, the number of 
the names together being about one hundred and twen- 
ty." The fact can only be of service to you, as far as 
Peter is concerned. It was his proposition — right or 
wrong — and none others. 

If you say that he acted for, or in the name and with 
the concurrence of, the other ten, you say what is nei- 
ther written, nor fairly to be implied. Still, you will 
claim, that Peter was competent to *^ transfer the very 



92 

same power he had received of Christ.'' If, for the sake 
of the argument, it be admitted, still, you have gone too 
far, and spoken beyond the record, when you say, the 
tSpostles did it. 

Beside, you make too much out of it. The transac- 
tion is a most awkward one to favor your position, that 
the Apostles transferred their power. Peter consulted 
with the private persons — those that bore the distinc- 
tive appellation of disciples, given alike to men and 
women. He submitted his proposition, to fill the va- 
cancy of Judas, to them — not to the Apostles — nor to 
any public officers in the church. That proposition he 
supported, by showing the remarkable accomplisliment 
of the prediction, that Judas should apostatize and per- 
ish, and by referring to the further prediction, that an- 
other should take his bishoprick, or overseer's office. 
You cannot prove, and are not at liberty to assume, 
that this prediction, taken from the 109th Psalm, was 
an imperative direction, intentionally given, to author- 
ize this procedure of Peter. Such use you do make of 
it, but without warrant. Hebrew scholars will tell you 
that the original verb here used, is in the future tense, 
and means simply a prediction of what should occur — 
^' his bishoprick another shall lake." 

2. In the next place, I remark, that, so far from Pe- 
ter, and the Apostles, endowing Matthias with power, 
the matter was submitted, in the most democratic man- 
ner, to the one hundred and twenty disciples, assem- 
bled on the occasion ; and ''they appointed two, Joseph 
called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Mat- 
thias." In order to make this fact available for your 
purpose, you must prove that they, who appointed 



I 



9a 



these persons, were the Apostles. This, I deny, and 

call for proof. Luke is very careful to tell us, that 

rthere were about one hundred and twenty disciples 

present, and that Peter rose up in the midst of them, 

• without ever saying a word about the apostles, or bring- 

t;ing them into view at all in the transaction. Whatever 

i lappointing power, therefore, was exercised, it would 

•appear, from Luke, that it was the Congregational as- 

isembly that exercised it. They nominated and selected 

the individuals. 

3. In the third place, I would remark, that Peter 
never, from the beginning of his speech to the end, 
ibreathes a note of either himself, or of his fellow apos- 
■jtles, conferring apostolic power on Matthias, or on any 
one else. He submitted the nomination to the mem- 
bers, and then proposed to refer the final decision to 
,the Lord, by means of the lot. 

\ 4. In the fourth place, Peter states what we under- 
^stood to be the qualifications for the apostolic office, as 
'^well as the great design of the office itself; and in all he 
says on this subject, there is not a hint dropped, or inti- 
Imation given, of power to rule and govern the church 
jof God, and to do '' the things which Christ would have 
tlone had he remained on the earth." 

The grand object, and duty, of the apostolic office, 
and for which he says," ''must one be ordained," he 
Imost unequivocally tells us, was to be '' a witness with 
I us of His (Christ's) resurrection." This accords precise- 
ly with what Christ had told the apostles, just before 
He ascended to Heaven. *• Ye shall receive power 
i Wter that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye 
ghall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all 



94 

Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts 
of the earth." Their office was to bear witness of the 
fact of Christ's resurrection. This was to be testified 
throughout the world ; and if the ecclesiastical legends 
are correct, the apostles so understood it, and spread 
themselves throughout the world, dividing it among 
them, to announce the wondrous fact. The powder, 
which, Christ said they would receive, after the spirit 
came upon them, was not ecclesiastical power; not the 
power of Christ's transferred Headship, which you af- 
firm had been given to them before this — although, at 
the time Christ spake, on the mount, before His ascen- 
sion, they had not according to His showing, yet re- 
ceived it, it being yet future — but the power of a wit- 
ness, sustained and iniluenced by the Holy Spirit of 
God. It was a moral and spiritual power, not eccle- 
siastical, to which the Saviour referred. If you will 
refer to your Greek Testament, you will perceive that 
the word receive is in the future middle, and that the 
power referred to, is that of the spirit coming upon 
them — a power and inlluence not imparted, as you af- 
firm it was, when He breathed on them and said, re- 
ceive ye the Holy Ghost. 

The word power, here directs us to the miraculous 
gifts, with w^hich they would be endowed, and by which 
they would be enabled, and emboldened, to deliver their 
testimony as witnesses, and prove the fact of Christ's 
resurrection. The language of the original is equiva- 
lent with this: *' ye shall take to yourselves or exert an 
energy of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and shall 
be or become witnesses unto me ;" i. e., they should 
be the honored agents, as persons actuated by the Spirit, 



95 

in furnishing the world convincing proof of the Sa- 
viour's resurrection, and through whom His mighty 
and miraculous energy should be exerted. This, and 
none other, is the power, which pertained appropriate- 
ly, and exclusively, to them, as apostles. This power, 
neither, Peter nor the ten apostles, could impart to Mat- 
thias, for they had it not themselves. It is radically 
and essentially, different from the power of Christ's 
Headship, which you say, was transferred to them to 
jule and govern the church. When your Bishops w^ill 
exercise and display it, we will recognize them indeed 
.as the apostles' successors, but not before. 

The qualification for this office, which Peter believed 
.and declared to be essential, was that they should have 
jbeen the intimate companions of Christ, from the time 
.of His baptism, till His ascension — it being certainly a 
treasonable idea, that ihey, who were to be witnesses, 
should be fully and personally conversant with the per- 
son, character, and habits, of w^hom they were to testify. 
This qualification, thus affirmed to be essential, proves, 
conclusively, that the apostolic office was not to be per- 
petual. None but those who had seen Christ personal- 
,ly, both before and after his resurrection, could be com- 
petent witnesses of the fact of his resurrection. The 
world was to be put in full possession of the evidence 
lof this fact, by the testimony of twelve men, the credi- 
bility of whose testimony should be confirmed by their 
Imiraculous powers. After the completion of their tes- 
|timony, all that was peculiar to their apostolic office, 
i ceased. If you claim its perpetuity, you must produce 
the essential qualification, that you ^^companied with 
(the other Apostles and disciples) all the time that the 



96 

Lord Jesus went in and out among them, beginning 
from the baptism of John, until that same day that He 
was taken up from them/' Acts, i, 21, 22. 

Moreover, you must prove the credibility of your 
testimony, by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, 
with which Jesus Christ promised to endow His apos- 
tles, and to fit them to be efficient witnesses to Him 
throughout the earth, Ads, ii, 8. Then, but not till 
then, can I recognize you to be an apostle, or the suc- 
cessor of an apostle, or can you legitimately claim 
either the officn, or the title of an apostle. The Roman 
here is much more consistent ; for whatever wc may 
think of his miracles, he claims to have the apostolic 
power of working them. 

5. I remark again, that what Peter proposed, was, 
to Jill a vacancy. Whether he acted right or wrong, 
this is the utmost extent to which his proposition went. 
This is all that you can possibly construe his reference 
to the 109th Psalm, to mean, even according to your 
own use of it. Now, what sort of proof, that the office 
was to be perpetual, I ask, could be Peter's proposition 
to fill vacancy in the college of apostles, whose quali- 
fications are shown, by the very statement of them, to 
have been of limited and temporary existence ? or, that 
the aposlles transferred their power to successors? 
You must first prove the college of twelve apostles, to 
be perpetual, and then, that it had the power of a close 
corporation, to fill its own vacancies, and so perpetu- 
ate itself, before it can avail you. Your argument is 
worth nothing till this is done, and when this is done, 
which is indispensable, you are compelled to limit their 
successors to no more than tw^elve at any one time, or 






97 

to prove, that they received authority to multiply the 
j number indefinitely. Who ever heard of a power to 
^ fill a vacancy in office, being construed as a power to 
perpetuate an ordkr ? We understand matters in 
these United States, mucli better than to identify such 
things. 

' 6. I remark, further, that there is no proof that Pe- 
Uer and the disciples, acted by Divine revelation in 
this transaction, but direct proof to the contrary. You 
^say, that, by virtue of their inference from the predic- 
tion concerning Judas, ''they therefore, under the gui- 
dance of the Spirit, which was to lead them into all 
truHb, appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was 
surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, 
and said, thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all 
men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, that 
he may take part of this ministry — Apostleship, from 
iwhich Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go 
to his own place. And they gave forth their lots, and 
the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with 
the Apostles." The utmost you can plead for Peter, 
and the disci pies is, that they inferred, from Psalm 109, 
that they ought to do this. But will you claim such 
an inference to be a revelation I Before you do, you 
must prove that it was a perfectly legitimate inference. 
This you cannot do. It does not follow, that because 
God predicted the vacancy would be filled, therefore, 
the Apostles had power to fill it. It is a non-sequitur. 
He might choose to do so Himself, directly, as the 
Lord Jesus Christ actually did, in the case of Saul of 
Tarsus. 
Should you say, that they were led, to this under- 
9 



98 

standing and practical application of th« prediction, bj • 
the Holy Spirit, you are required to prove it. The' 
Spirit had not yet been given them, according to "the 
promise of the Father, which, (said Christ,) ye have 
heard of me." They were actually waiting for it, ac- 
cording to His command. You are not allowed, there- 
fore, to put in the plea of Peter'3 infallibility, here. 

Besides, the very fact, that they prayed for direc- 
tion, and still more especially, that they cast lots, and 
so determined the matter, abundantly and conclusively 
refute the pretence, that they acted by inspiration of 
the Spirit. 

It surprises me greatly to notice the way you rea- 
son on this point. You say, 'Mt is singular that the 
Apostles should have thus acted, unless they believed 
that Christ had given to them the power to continue 
the very same office they had received. And more 
especially, that they should so soon appoint an Apos- 
tle in the place of Judas, when there was no need to 
increase their number, if there were to be no succes- 
sion." Not at all singular. It is by no means singu- 
lar, for men to think they have power which they do 
not, of right, possess, and presume, too, to exercise it. 
It was possible for Peter to err, unless you indorse his 
infallibility, which you seem disposed to do, and which, 
I shall presently show, you cannot maintain. 

Had you confined your remarks, to the filling of a 
vacancy, they would have been more appropriate, than 
to the continuance of a succession ; but even then, it 
would by no means be singular, that Peter, naturally 
so rash and liable to impulses, might honestly err, and 
transcend his powers. I say Peter, for, although in 



99 

your reasoning you assume that the Apostles were pre- 
sent, yet the word does not so afFirm . Judas had apos- 
tatized, and hung himself, before Christ had risen. 
His wretched end therefore left a vacancy; and behev- 
\n^ that twelve was the number whom Christ had de- 
termined to be the witnesses, of His resurrection, Pe- 
ter, without adverting to the Saviour's miraculous 
agency, and prerogative, as head of His church, him- 
self to call and commission His Apostles, might natu- 
rally think, that some election or measure on the part 
of the disciples, were necessary, to supply the vacancy. 
The spirit had not yet been poured out upon them — 
.they had not yet received the power promised; and 
jwhat, therefore, more natural, than that Peter, acting 

• as he did, without Divine direction— which his conduct 
proves — should have erred in his reasonings, and pro- 
posed inconsiderate measures? especially when the 
Master had required them to wait in Jerusalem, evi- 
dently teaching them, to attempt nothing, till they had 
received the promise of the Father? All, therefore, 

.that you say, about its being ^Miighly probable/' that 
^Christ had instructed them specifically on ^'this sub- 
ject," to do as Peter did, and about the other Apostles 
; consenting to it, and thus proving they '' had received 

special instructions on this subject, from himself, is to 
j no purpose." The Apostles were wont to quote the au- 
I thority of Jesus Christ, whenever they had it, for what 
I they did, and not to reason. I therefore, may return 
{ your remark, and say, that, if they had the special in- 
I fitruction of Christ to supply the vacancy of Judas, as 

you teach they had, ^'it is singular,*' that Peter should 

• have entered into an argument about it, and infer- 



100 

red it from a prophecy, and the '^ more especially,'* 
when his prescription plead, it would have been in- 
stantly conchisive and imperative. 

You seem to be aware, that here you adventure on 
uncertain ground; for, although, at one moment, you 
affirm, that Peter was guided, in this matter, by the 
Spirit, and at another, that he acted conformably to 
the special instructions of Christ, you nevertheless, af- 
ter all, admit, that it is by inference, this point is to be 
ascertained. You say that Christ ^^must have spoken 
of the treachery of Judas, and also, of the position 
which he occupied, and if so, it is reasonable to iiifer 
that he gave them instructions to supply his place. 
For it cannot be supposed for one moment, that the 
Saviour would transfer so great an office, as He him- 
self had received from His Father, to feeble and short- 
sighted men, without giving them instructions, as to 
the manner in which its duties were to be performed, 
and more especially, whether it would be transfeiired to 
oihers.^^ 

Certainly such a thing is not for one moment to be 
supposed ; I therefore call for the instructions. Letf 
them be produced. I deny that there is any thing, ia 
all that Christ said, or that is contained in the sacred 
Scriptures, which proves, that He *^ would transfer to 
feeble, short-sighted men, so great an office as He 
himself had received of the Father." His instruction, 
either on this subject, or in relation to Peter's proce- 
dure, is NOT to be found on record in the New or Old 
Testament; and therefore, if you assert it, you must 
plead with the Papist, the private instructions, from 



101 

which they draw so largely, viz : their unwritten tra- 
ditions, and maintain the infallibility of Peter. 

This you do in fact, for you add, ** but they could 
not err in a matter which w^ould for ever after give 
character to the government of the church of Christ. 
The Spirit of Christ had been promised to guide them 
into all truth, and to keep them from every error, in 
.discharging their official duties.'* But that Spirit, as 
J have shown, was not yet given. Besides, although 
fthe Spirit was promised, to guide them into all truth, 
it does not follow that infallibility in discharging their 
official duties would certainly characterize the Apos- 
tles. We know it did not. The promise, like all 
.others of Christ to His church, was fulfilled ^'according 
,to their faith.*' If faith fails, the promise cannot be 
.claimed, and that faith did at times fail. Peter actual- 
ity dissembled, and was rebuked by Paul for his dupli- 
icity, in a matter affecting vitally, the public interests of 
the church of God. The Apostles themselves did not 
so understand that promise ; for they called Peter to a 
solemn account, for alledged offences, committed by 
j him as a public teacher in Cassarea.* 

Besides, it remains for you to show, how Peter's 
transaction, for ever after gave character to the govern- 
ment of the Church of Christ. There w^as not an or- 
(ganized Christian church, at the time, in existence, and 
I there is nothing, in the usages of churches, and even in 
the Episcopacy, of which it is a fair and full prece- 
dent. 

In claiming the infallible inspiration of the Spirit for 
Peter, you have been betrayed into a singular speci- 

*See Acts, xi, 1, 2, &e. 

9# 



loa 

men of what appears to me, illogical reasoning. You 
say, **If this be not admitted, and this act of the Apos- 
tles considered as unauthorized, we must come neces- 
sarily, to these two conclusions — that there cannot be 
implicit reliance placed upon any one of their acts — 
and next, that St. Luke, the writer of the " Acts of the 
Apostles," could not have written under the inspiration 
of the Spirit, or he never would have recorded an un- 
warrantable act, and pahned it off on the Christfan 
world as authorized."^ 

How you, sir, come to these concfusionff, I know not ; 
but certainly, the premises never led to them. There 
are some of your acts on which I place implicit reliance, 
and there are others in which I and many others, think 
you err, transcending your authority as a minister of 
Jesus Christ. Does it follow, that because you should 
do one unauthorized act, as a minister of Christ, there- 
fore there can be no reliance placed on a??y one of your 
acts? By no means. The acts speak for themselves, 
and God has left us the standard and right of judging 
in relation to them. He has, in no instance, not even 
in the case of the Apostles, claimed from us a blind, 
implicit, absolute reliance on their acts, as infallible. 
The Apostles never so interpreted and understood 
their own power. They indeed were examples to the 
flock, but only as they followed Christ ; and this was 
true, whether you regard their private or their official 
acts. 

It is a very easy thing to place implicit reliance, on 
all Peter's acts, judged to be right by the standard of 
Jesus Christ, and yet question the propriety of others, 
where in common with his fellow men, and unaided by 



103 

the spirit of inspiration, he allowed himself to reason, 
and erred in his inferences. We know no blind reve- 
rence for the acts of any man, not even of Apostles, for 
whom tiie claim of pcrfeclion or infallibility is set up. 

Equally inconclusive are you, when you reason, that 
to deny the infallibility of Peter, in the transaction re- 
ferred to, is to deny the inspiration of Luke; because, as 
you say, if inspired, *' he never would have recorded an 
unwarrantable act, and palmed it otV on the christian 
world." It will be time to meet this charge against 
Luke, when you prove that he ever did such a thing. 
There is no proof whatever, that he palmed off Peter's 
transaction, as authorized. He has recorded other un- 
warrantable acts, and sufTered ihcm to speak for them- 
selves, without censuring the agents. This is the busi- 
ness of an historian. Thus, too, has the Spirit of God 
indicted the Bible. Certain unwarrantable acts of 
Abraham and David and others, are recorded, without 
a comment. Has the Spirit of God palmed them ofFon 
the christian world, as authorized, because He has not 
expressed His condemnation of them, in doing so? 

The truth is. God does not treat men as children, and 
put every thing down in set forms for them to read. 
Hestates facts, and lets them form their own judgments, 
often in the light of great general truths, and of princi- 
ples applicable to the case. Who gave you the right to 
dictate to the Spirit of God, how He should have writ" 
ten His word? and, because He has not done it, in the 
way in which you say it was His duty to do — on a sup- 
position contrary to your fLivorite opinion — therefore 
conclude that opinion must be true? This is proceed- 
ing too far. Yet, thus you speak of Luke, who was 



104 

actuated by the Spirit of God. ** It was his duty to 
have mentioned that the Apostles acted unadvisedly 
and that they had no right to transfer the authority, 
which they had received from the Saviour. For his 
silence, and of course his implied recognition of this 
act as authorized, [non-sequiter,) has led to the con- 
tinuation of this very office, with all its ordinary pow- 
ers, from that time down to the present hour,'' and so, 
forsooth, poor Luke, or the Spirit of God, must bear all 
the blame of the errors and usurpation of the Episcopal 
Hierarchy. Why neither Luke nor the Spirit of God 
ever said that the Apostles had received the authority 
of Christ's Headship, and there was no need to say, 
they had no riizht to transfer it. Silence under such 
circumstances was any thing but a recognition of such 
authority. Marvelous logic ! Because I never, for 
one moment, admit, or imagine, that the president of 
the L^nited States has power to create or perpetuate a 
privileged order, therefore, when I give an account of 
his appointing a man to some vacant office, without 
expressing an opinion about itatall,if I do not state the 
act to be unauthorized, I must of course recognize that 
he had authority to elevate the appointed person to the 
privileged order!! and, to make the logic more glar- 
ing, if I should have happened to be, the historian 
Bancroft, I must be held responsible for all the errors and 
abuses of those, who some two hundred years hence, 
will uphold the president in his usurpation, should he 
claim to do so, and contend, that, from the beginning 
of our government, he had the right to create a pri- 
vileged order I All this you doubtless esteem a de- 
fence of Luke, as an historian, whom you seek to en- 




105 

list in proof of the Episcopal claims. Excuse me, if I 




*' Non tali auxilio, 
Nee defensoribus islis." 

7. I remark that Peter, and the disciples were so far 
from recognizing the right or authority of the Apostles 
to transfer the power of Christ's headship to Matthias, 
that they actually referred the matter to God, and 
prayed him to show which one He had chosen. They 
never doubted, for a moment, the fact, that Christ was 
to make the choice. To Him they believed pertained 
the power, even when they proposed that the election 
of Jesus Christ should be determined by the use of the 
lot, after prayer. So far were they from undertaking 
to rule and govern the church, by virtue of Christ's 
transferred Headship, that they actually and formally 
referred the matter of filling the vacancy of Judas, to 
Him, as their acknowledged Lord and Supreme Head. 

I remark, finally, that there is no notice of the or- 
dination, or consecration, of Matthias to the ofRce of 
Apostle. They gave forth their lots; the lot fell on 
Matthias, and he was numbered with the Apostles. 
This is all that is said about it. No notice is ever af- 
terward taken of Matthias. We never hear his name 
mentioned, but in due season, the Lord Jesus Christ 
commissions Saul of Tarsus, and sends him forth, al- 
though as one born out of due time, yet not a whit 
behind the chief of the apostles, w^ho speaks of his au- 
thority received from the Lord, not from the Apostles, 
** to whom he gave place by subjection, no not for one 
hour.'' 

In view, therefore, of all these facts, I cannot but ex- 
press my surprise, at the very bold and confident man« 



106 

ner, in which you think you have proved, from the 
case of Matthias, that the Apostles had successors, con- 
stituted such by themselves, with plenary authority, 
like their own, even that of Christ's Headship on earth. 
Your argument has failed in every particular. And 
you have brought out your conclusion in a manner al- 
together unsustainable. 

*' Few persons/' you say, *^are willing to reject the 
^acts of the Apostles,' and therefore ihey must recog- 
nize the transfer of apostolic authority to Matthias. 
If so, the position is established, that the Apostles had 
successors.'' Truly! but there is an if in the case. I 
reject not the acts of the Apostl?s, nor should I, were 
I to say, that I sec no evidence of what you allirm, that 
Matthias, by Divine direction, filled the vacancy of Ju- 
das. All that it can prove is, that Judas had a succes- 
sor — that is all. What you say about the promise, 
^* Lo ! I am with you always to the end of the world," 
does not prove that they were to have successors of 
like authority with themselves. I see not how it "is 
a clear intimation that the (Apostolic) office was to con- 
tinue.'* Nor, admittin;; that Matthias received like 
gifts with the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, does it 
help your argument, for if the context proves that the 
whole one hundred and twenty disciples, as well as the 
eleven, parlook of the gifts, and if Matthias' endow- 
ment with them, was *' the distinct recognition of the 
right to transfer their office," by the Apostles, then for 
the same reason, the whole one hundred and twenty 
must have been made, and recognized as Apostles, too. 

The use you make of the numbers eleven and twelve, 
do not confirm vour conclusion. What is said about 



107 

Peter's standing up with the eleven, does not of neces- 
sity imply, that there were eleven beside him — only 
that he was one of them, and the most conspicuous of 
the band that numbered eleven, and were commonly 
called '^ the eleven." There is, in fact, nothing posi- 
tive to be inferred from the use of the w^ord tw^elve, 
whether by Paul, in Coi\, xv, 5, or by Luke, in ^Icts, 
vi, 2, whom you quote ; for after the death of Judas, 
and before the election of Matthias, on the very occa- 
sion when Christ uttered the words of your text, and 
but two verses cifter, John calls the college of ^^postles, 
then numbering only eleven, the twelve. . ''But Thomas, 
one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them 
when Jesus came.'' There were actually but ten 
Apostles present, w^ien Christ breathed on them, and 
said, '' as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.'' 
If this, according to your showing, was their third and 
last commission, Thomas never w^as fully made an 
Apostle, for there is no proof that Christ afterwards 
addressed these words to him. Yet, these ten are spo- 
ken of as ''the twelve.*' 

The truth is, the phrase, the twelve, like the seventy 
judges, denoted the college, which, when compJete, 
comprised just that number, neither more nor less, but 
did not imply, in every" instance, that every one was 
present. There might be one or more absent, from 
the court of the seventy, still it would, by a very com- 
mon license of speech, be called the seventy, that being 
its current and familiar name. So the apostles were 
designated for a season, the eleven, about the time of 
Judas' apostacy, and death, for a very obvious but 
temporary reason, but more frequently, the twelve, be- 



108 

cause their number had been that, during the days of 
Christ, and is to bo that, in the kingdom of Heaven, 
when the Apostles shall sit on twelve thrones judging 
the twelve tribes of Israel. 

You dispatch in a very summary way, the account, 
which Christ and Peter both give, of the design of the 
Apostles' office, that they should be witnesses, by say- 
ing, that there would have been no need to have or- 
dained Matthias, that was all. When you have prov- 
ed that ever Matthias was ordained, then may you 
make use of it in argument, not before. This you have 
not done, and tliis I defy you to do. 

Your first case, cited in proof of the apostolic suc- 
cession, fails. In my next letter, I shall notice the fur- 
ther proof you attempt on this point, from the case of 
Timothv. 



LETTER VIII. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR TIMOTHY'S EPISCOPATE. 
fev. AND DEAR SIR: 

Your second argument, in proof of the ^' Apostolical 
succession/^ is taken from the case of Timothy and 
Titus, the former of whom, you say, Paul ** placed as 
Apostle over the church at Ephesus, and the latter, 
over the church in Crete," with ^^ supreme authority, 
to rule and govern the church, and also to set apart 
Elders and Deacons — inferior and subordinate minis- 
ters.'' Of the Apostles, you say again — so that I can- 
not have mistaken, or misrepreseiited, your views about 
the authority you claim to have been transferred, 
to them, and through them, on your Bishops — '^ All 
power was centered in them, yet they, by the guidance 
of the Spirit, transferred their office to others, and also 
created inferior grades in the ministry, with limited 
powers, deriving these powers directly from them- 
selves.'' 

I shall notice your *^ proof,'' and the facts in the 
case. You have quoted, as evidence that ^^ the Apos- 
Ule places him, (Timothy,) over the church at Ephe- 
sus, and gives him the power to ordain Elders and 
! Deacons, in the churches." what I am constrained to 
I say, you will not find in either epistle to Timothy. 
Your quotations are garbled passages of the sacred 
I Scriptures. Who that reads the following, pointed as 
10 



116 

you have it, would not think, that the wol-ds you itali- 
cise, stood in the epistle to Timothy, just as you have 
given them? *'St. Paul says, the charge that I com- 
mil unto thee, son Timothy, that thou mayest know how 
thou oughest to behave thyself in the house of God, which 
is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of 
truthJ^ You certainly intended it to be understood, that 
Paul gave Timothy this charge, for his direction, in 
the exercise of the supreme power of Christ's Head- 
ship, or of the Apostolical office — identical with you — 
which, you say, was transferred to him. I will not 
say, that you meant to deceive the reader, but this I 
must say, that *'all must admit, who are familiar with 
the word of God," that you are egregiously mistaken. 

In the 1st chapter of Timothy, and 18th verse, the 
first part of your quotation occurs, in these words — 
*' This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy i'^^ all that 
Paul says, in immediate connection, to explain what 
charge it was he meant, you omit, and then you com- 
plete your quotations, as though they were one and in- 
divisible, by taking the remainder from 1 Timothy, iii, 
15 — two chapters ahead — a garbled extract from ano- 
ther verse, in these words — *' that thou mightest know 
how thou ovghtest to behave thyself in the house of God^ 
which is the church of the living God, the pillar and 
ground of the truth '^ Give me liberty to weave parts 
of different texts together, in this style, without refer- 
ence to their immediate connection, and I can prove 
any thing I choose, from the Bible. 

But, as I would not dare to do it, so T will not con- 
sent that you shall; and, lest you should say — that the 
general import is the same — and that you did but clasp 



Ill 

together the head and tail of PauTs charge to Timo- 
thy, leaving out the body, and merely alluding to it — 
let us examine it, for a moment, and see if it be the 
very sort of chargc^for which you have passed it ofl". 
This charge I commit to thee, son Timothy — what charge? 
his general charge at ordination? By no means; but 
'this specific charge, ^^ according to the prophecies ichich 
went before on thee, that thou, by them, mightest war a 
good warfare; holding faith and a good conscience^ 
which some having put away, conceiniing faith, have 
made shipwreck, of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander,^'' 
\ Tim., i, 18, 19. Paul, you perceive, charged Timo- 
thy, that he should demean himself as a minister of 
Jesus Christ, according to the prophecies which went be- 
fore on him — i. e. previously dehvered concerning, or 
to him.^ It is a charge, relating to his personal piety 
and faithful ministry, that he realize fully, all that had 
,been prophesied concerning him. Where is there any 
thing in all this, like giving him power to ordain El- 
ders and Deacons? It certainly was not Paul's ordi- 
nation charge, for it was delivered by letter. Ordina- 
tion cannot thus be performed. 

As to the other passage,! which you cite from, 1 
Tim., iii, 15, the verse, in its connection, reads thus: 
r^ These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto 
thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou ?7iightest know 

*Sec Rosen tnueller and Bloomficid, &c., ad. loc. 

t vSince the above was prepared for the press, I perceive that a second edition 
of the sermon has appeared, in vvlilch ii has been attempted to amend these garbled 
quotations. The langungc, with tiic exception of the words " Son Timothy,'''' con- 
tained in the first part of the quotation from i. Tim., i, lo, is taken from 1. Tim., iii, 
14, 15. Had ijie quotation stood in tlic first, as in the second edition, I would have 
'withheld tiie above remarks, and have only asked, by what sort of logic Paul's 
, writing a letter of insiruction, about various matters, to Timothy, proves that "the 
j Apostle places him over ihe church at Ephesus, and gives him the power to ordain 
i Elders and Deacons in the churclies V Tiie quotation as it stands in the first, ha* 
lisuch more of the semblance of proof, than as it stands in the second edition. 



112 

how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the ho7ise of God, 
which is the church, (a church — an assembly — the word 
EKKLESiA wants the article,) of the living God, Grie- 
bach connects the following words^ viz: ''the pillar 
and ground of truth/^ with \vhat comes after, and com-! 
mences a new sentence with them, a pillar and ground^ 
(orToundation) of the truth, and confessedly g7'eaty is the 
(this^ mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the 
ilesh,'' &c. This is PauFs own account of the mat- 
ter. So far from its being a solemn ordination charge, 
transferring power to Timothy, to use your own fa- 
vorite expression, the utmost you can make of it, is, 
that it is a letter of special instruction, to assist him in 
giving instruction to others, as to the general subject of 
prayer, of the dress and behavior of women, and of the 
qualifications of Bishops, Deacons, and Deacons wives. 
In all this, I sec nothing like the transfer of power, or 
the charge of ordination, for which you plead. These 
instructions, given to Timothy, do not pix)ve Timothy's 
supremacy, or prelatical power, in the church at Ephe- 
sus. They were far, very far, from constituting him a 
Diocesan Bishop. 

The passage you (juotc in this connection, from 2 
Timothy, ii, 2, does not prove Timothy, either to have 
been endowed with this power himself, or to have been 
authorized to transfer it to others. It did not form 
part of the same charge, and was written at a later 
date. All that you can fairly make out of it, is, that 
Paul would have Timothy careful, to seek out, and to 
introduce to the ministerial office, persons qualified to 
understand, and to preach, the great and gracious truths 
which he had heard and learned from Paul, and that 



113 

none others should be ordained. '' Thou, therefore, 
my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 
and the things thou hast heard of me, among many 
I witnesses, the same, commit thou to faithful men, who 
shall be able to teach others also.'' This is a charge, 
which we Presbyterians feel to be as important, and 
weighty, as any other. But, while we severally real- 
ize our obligations to seek out, and while we endeavor 
to have thoroughly instructed, well qualified and com- 
petent men for the gospel ministry — workmen well in- 
structed in the things which Paul taught — we have 
never yet seen, how our obligations, in this matter, 
require us to submit them to Episcopal ordination. 
That remains still to be shown; since you, in common 
with all prelatical writers, have failed in your argu- 
ment here. 

You have, indeed, asserted, that the name of Bishop 
was then given to the second grade in the ministry, 
the highest being designated by the term '^ ^ipostle.^^ 
The incorrectness of this, I shaH have occasion, in a 
more suitable place, to show. At present, I remark, 
that the instructions, about Bishops and their qualifi- 
cations, which Paul gave to Timothy, apply only to 
your second grade of ministers, viz: Presbyters, or ac- 
cording to your preferred nomenclature, ** Priests," and 
not to your Diocesan Bishops, the successors of the 
Apostles, and themselves Apostles. Not a word of 
instruction, therefore, is to be found in all the New 
Testament, according to your showing, about the du- 
ties and qualifications of your Bishops, i. e. the Dioce- 
sans, or the ** Episcopal Bishops," of the first grade 
above the Bishops or Presbyters of the Apostles' days. 
10* 



114 

Is this at all likely t I ask, in your own language^ 
"would so great an office as Christ Himself had recei* 
ved from His Father, (be transferred) to feeble and 
short sighted men, without giving them instructions as 
to the manner, in which its duties were to be perfor- 
med, and more especially, whether it could be transfer- 
red to others!'^ All Paul's instruction, according to 
your own admission, applies to the second grade. Timo- 
thy, therefore, was told all about making Bishops, i. e. 
Priests, but not a word about what sort of men should 
be made ^^ Episcopal Bishops,''^ \. e. Apostles, to suc- 
ceed himself. It is passing strange, that not a word 
should have been said about your highest grade, in the 
epistle either to Timothy, or to Titus ! ! 

The silence of Paul, on this subject, raises a very 
high presumption, that there was no such office, as 
your Apostolic Bishop, and that the distinction you 
make, along with Dr. Ondcrdonk, and others, between 
such Bishops, and Bishops of the second grade, whom 
he calls ** Presbyter-Bishops," has no foundation in re» 
ality. 

Still, you claim, that Timothy had power to ordain, 
and that this power extended to what you call the two 
inferior grades of the ministry, viz: the Presbyter- 
Bishops — answering to your Priests — and the Dea- 
cons. You quote, in proof of this, the passage, '* lay 
hands suddenly on no manT Power to ordain, does 
not prove Timothy to have been an Apostle, unless 
you first establish an inferior grade in the ministry. 
This, you have not done. 

That the Deacons were the lower grade of the min- 
istry, you think ** is evident from the fact, that St. 



115 

Stephen and St. Phillip, both Deacons, preached^ and 
the latter, baptized.'' There is no proof that ever 
Stephen preached. All that is said about him, is, that 
when certain members of the Synagogue of the Liber- 
tines, DISPUTED with him, they could not resist the 
wisdom and the Spirit, by which he spoke." Acts^ vi, 
19. Many an excellent Presbyterian Deacon can give 
proof of his talent for disputation, and of his skill in 
silencing adversaries by the force of argument, yet do 
we not account such preachers, for all that. We hold, 
that laymen have a natural right to speak, and to dis- 
pute, if they find it necessary, on subjects connected 
with religion. The right of speaking, and disputing 
privately, socially, publicly, as opportunities may be 
afforded, pertains to men, naturally. It is not the right, 
exclusively, of the ministry. See Acts, viii, 4. You 
may call it lay-preaching. We do not so understand 
it. The preaching of the Gospel, which pertains to 
the ministry, and is authoritative like the proclamation 
of a herald, is very different from any thing you can 
show, that ever Stephen did proving him to have been 
a publicly authorized, or ordained, minister of the Gos- 
pel. 

And as for Phillip, who also baptized, we are ex- 
pressly told that he was an Evangelist, see Acts, xxi, 
8 — a distinctly recognized officer in the church of God! 
See Eph., iv, 11, so that what of right pertained to 
him as such, cannot legitimately be referred to the office 
of Deacon, to which he seems first to have been cal- 
led. Especially, when the duties of a Deacon are so 
carefully stated to have been those of a secular char- 
acter, see AciSj vi, 1-3, viz: the daily ministration or 



116 

distribution of food or help to the poor; and when, in 
Paul's instructions given to Timothy, 1 T/m., iii, 8-13 
relative to the Deacon's qualifications and duty, there 
is not a word, directly or indirectly, implying that 
they were publicly authorized teachers^ commissioned 
preacher's or heralds of t/ie Gospel. 

The fact, that Peter and John, together, laid their 
hands on the converts at Samaria — that the converts 
thus received the Holy Ghost, does not prove either, 
that Phillip was a Deacon, or that he was inferior to 
them. It was nothing like your rite of consecration, 
for Peter and John officiated together, and they, on 
whom they laid their hands, rcceived the Holy Spirit 
in a visible manner, so that even unbelievers, saw it, 
Ads, viii, 18. All that can be fairly affirmed, in rela- 
tion to it, is, that the Apostles Peter and John, them- 
selves, endowed with miraculous power and visibly im- 
parted, also communicated to the converts at Samaria, 
in the same visible manner, the miraculous gifts of the 
Spirit. It proves, indeed, the superiority of Peter and 
John, as Apostles; but, that superiority, consisted, 
among other things, in power to impart, miraculous 
gifts, and the Spirit, visibly, to them that believed — not 
in ruling, governing, ordaining, and such like things. 

The power to ordain, and to discipline, they did ex- 
ercise; but it was as Presbyters, styling themselves 
such, and accounting themselves fellow-presbytbrs, 
with others, who, you say, were inferior to them, see 
1 Peter, v, 1; 2 John, i; 3 John, i. It is essential to 
your claims, that you prove — 1. That Timothy — and 
the same remarks apply also to Titus — possessed the 
qualifications, was endowed with the powers, and dis- 



117 

charged the duties of an Apostle. 2. That he posses- 
sed powers of a grade superior to Presbyter-Bishops. 
3. That such powers were designed to be permanent 
in the church, &c. And 4. That he was regularly 
constituted a Diocesan Bishop, with plenary authority 
to rule and govern the ministry and the churches. 
You have proved none of these points, essential to 
your argument; nor have they been proved by any 
prelatical writer. 

I have shown what were the qualifications, powders, 
and duties, appropriate and peculiar to the Apostles. 
Timothy possessed none of them; nor do w^e ever read 
of his having imparted visibly, the Spirit, or done any 
of those things, peculiar to the Apostles. Before you 
can cite the power, to ordain, to express judgment, to 
exercise discipline, or to rule in the church, which 
Timothy possessed, as proof of his being an Apostle, 
you must prove, that these pertained exclusively, to 
the Apostles. This has ever been denied. Every 
prelatical writer, as yet, has failed to prove it. It 
avails you not to say, that the Apostles had power to 
ordain — which no one disputes — unless you can prove, 
that they alone, had this power, and that it was pccu- 
liar to their Apostolic office, 

Mr. Barnes, "^ exposed fully, the inconclusiveness of 
Dr. Onderdonk's reasoning on this point; and under- 
took to show, that, while he assumed this falsely, there 
is not the trace of evidence, in any of the full and 
separate accounts given of their appointment, in Mat,^ x, 
Markj iii, 12, and Luke^ vi — and also, that there is not, 
in any of the important and minute instructions given 

* See Ills Episcopacy Examineil. 



118 

to them, the least hint, either that the power to ordain 
pertained exclusively to them, or that ihey were supe- 
rior in ministerial rights and authority. Not a word 
was intimated to this effect, when the seventy disciples 
were commissioned' at once, Luke^ x, 1-16; nor after 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ, J\Tat,, xxviii, 18-20, 
Mark^ xvi, 15-18, Lukc.w'w^ 47-49; nor is there any 
where else, in ihe New Testament, proof, that this 
power to ordain, and superiority of ministerial rank, 
dignity and authority, were pecuHar to the Apostolic 
office. When will you, gentlemen, who insist upon 
your being Apostles, and possessed of Apostolic pow- 
ers, meet this point, so essential in your argument, and 
give us proof, and not assumption ? It has been called 
for, for hundreds of years, but has not yet been pro- 
duced. 

The distinction between Apostles and Elders, we 
admit, and have shown wherein It consists. Dr. On- 
dcrdonk's attempt to cite that distinction, in proof of 
superiority as to ministerial power, is a begging of the 
question. liCt the superiority be first established; then 
he may cite the distinction, but not before. 

What you say, therefore, about Timothy's power to 
ordain, being proof of his apostleship, is to ik) purpose, 
till you have met this point. Nor is it to your purpose, 
to tell us of Paul's instructions to Timothy, about judi- 
cial cases. It is a very con^^mon thing among us Pres- 
byterians, in writing to each other, to give similar ad- 
vice, yea and sometimes too, to private members of the 
church, never to receive an accusation against an Elder, 
or even any one else, but before two or three witnesses; 
which, if it were universally practiced among ministers 



119 

ana church members, how much slander and mischief 
would be prevented. The Elders of the Presbyterian 
church in this city, not very long since, addressed a let- 
ter to its members, inculcating this great principle of 
christian morality. None of them ever dreamed, that, 
by such advice, in relation to the great obHgations which 
lie at the foundation of social order and of christian 
peace and fellowship, we were conferring on them judi- 
cial power. 

You assume what is to be proved, that Paul, in wri- 
ting to Timothy was endowing him with official author- 
ity; whereas he was only illustrating, and expounding, 
or giving instruction and counsel as to, the great princi- 
ples of right, of truth, of morality, and of christian fel- 
lowsliip, whicli it behooved him, and every Evangelist^ 
Bishop, or Elder, to understand; and even suggesting 
private advice, for his own personal benefit, and for the 
preservation of his health. 

Still less to the point is your allusion to the fact, that 
Paul told Timothy *^to charge some that they teach no 
Other doctrine, than that which Paul himself had 
made known to them'' — which any and every Pres- 
byter is competent to do, who is himself instructed in 
the doctrine of Paul, and which implies nothing of the 
power of ordaining and deposing, or ruling and govern- 
I ing. Neither, from all that you, nor from what other 
( advocates of Episcopacy, have written, nor in all the 
controversies on the subject, has proof been produced 
i of any one of the first three things I have mentioned 
I so essential to the argument, viz : that Timothy was 
I an Apostle, — that he possessed powers superior to 



120 

Presbyter Bishops — and that such powers were design- 
ed to be perpetual in the church. 

You insist, however, that he was constituted Apos- 
tolic Bishop of Ephesus. If so, we grant that you 
have proved all. Your argument is this: the chargeof 
Paul, to the Eiders of Ephesus differed, radically, from 
that to Timothy, and involves, neither the power of or- 
dination, nor power over one another — nor proves that 
Timothy was appointed over them as their superior, 
their governing Bishop. The grand difference in the 
charges to Timothy, and to the Elders of Ephesus, on 
which you lay so much stress, is, that the charge to Ti-^ 
mothv was to u\m pej^sonaUi/, whereas that to the Elders 
was to them collectively as a hody. You certainly are 
aware, that the charge to the Elders was delivered per- 
sonally by Paul, when ihey met him at Miletus, — that 
that to Timothy was written to him as an individual — 
but that neither was an official charge appointing to 
office, or transferring power. You must admit that they 
were Elders before this charge was delivered — as was J 
Timothy an Evangelist, before he received Paul's let-| 
ter. We are not, therefore, to infer, in either case, 
the *^ transfer*' of power from the Apostle. Whatever 
power they severally had, they had it before ; and 
therefore, if it is to be determined from Paul's charge, 
it must be inferred from the things and duties referred 
to. You see nothing, however, in the Apostle's charge 
to the Elders, implying any thing else than power to 
** nourish the members w^th the bread of life" — which 
is all you admit Xh^i feeding the church of Goc? imports, 
and obligations *' to be watchful over themselves lest 
some might be led away from the faith." Allow you 






121 

lo define the Apostle's terms to suit your argument, 
and to assume, as he does, the very thing in dispute or 
to put interpretations on PauPs language which are 
denied to be correct, and you may bring out the proof 
to suit you. 

But, let us look at Paul's language. Although the 
charge to Timothy, is more extended and minute, and 
that to the Elders of Ephesus, more general and com- 
prehensive, yet does the latter include all that the for- 
mer can be claimed to mean. The whole point and 
force of the argument, as drawn out by Dr. Onderdonk, 
turns on the circumstance that in writing to Timothy, 
Paul says, ** thou," but in speaking to the Elders, he 
says ^* YOU." The logic of this argument has yet to 
be shown. Whatever duties were appropriate to Ti- 
mothy as a Presbyter, either personally, or in common 
with his fellow Presbyters, Paul of course in writing 
(to Timothy for his benefit, and especially as an influ- 
tential teacher, would use the singular thou. Before 
you can use this circumstance for your purpose, you 
must prove superiority. The mere use of the singu- 
lar does not prove it — nor does the nature of the du- 
,ties enjoined, nor the advice given. 
! The language of Paul to the Elders of Ephesus, is 
'**Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the 
^flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
overseers (bishops) — to feed the church of God, w^hich 
He hath purchased with His own blood. For I know 
this, that after my departing, shall grievous wolves en- 
ter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your 
own selves, shall men arise, speaking perverse things, 



11 



122 

to draw away disciples after them. Therefore,^*^ watch." 
Now the first thing worthy of notice here, is the com- 
prehensive injunction of the Apostle, covering three 
great classes of duties peculiar to those who exercise 
the Episcopal office. They were 1st, to take heed to 
themselves. The context shows that the Apostle 
meant, not each man to take " heed to himself," but mu- 
. tually, reciprocally and severally, bach to the other. — 
I know no better language to express, briefly and com- 
prehensively, all that we Presbyter-bishops feel bound 
to do towards each other, in the way of discipline, and 
yet claim no superiority of one over the other. 2d. 
They wore to take heed to all the Jlock, and in this, as 
well as the former respect, to do it as Bishops, or over- 
seers. Diligent attention to discharge Episcopal du- 
ties and obligations, to her members, and to the church 
collectively, is what Paul here urges — nor can you 
possibly make his words mean less. 3d. They were 
to feed the Church of God. It was to accomplish this 
the more effectually, that he urged them to take heed 
to discharge their Episcopal functions. Yet you tell 
us, all this means ** those duties only — that relate to 
the pastoral office, such as feeding the church, that is 
noitrishing the members with the bread of lifeJ^ 

Now, sir, you certainly are aware that the word 
feed, here used by the Apostle, poimanein, means more 
than preaching, praying, exhorting, giving counsel and 
administering the Lord's Supper. Did you mean to con- 
vey the idea that it does not? surely you know that it 
literally means to do the work — to discharge the office- 
of a shepherd ; and also, that the duties and office of a 

* Acts, XX, 28-31. 



123 

shepherd and a Bishop, are identical, in the estimation 
of the Apostle Peter, who says that Jesus Christ is the 
Shepherd and Bishop of souls, 1 Peter, ii, 25. The pasto- 
ral and Episcopal office were identical, in so far as Jesus 
^Christ, the Great Head of the Church, possessed them. 
How come you then to separate them, while never- 
theless claiming, that He transferred that Headship to 
the Apostles'? Your opinion is of little value when 
you tell us, that your Apostolic Bishops are something 
greatly superior to pastors, as long as the fact cannot 
be denied — that, so far as Christ is concerned, there was 
no difference. 

Beside, I would ask, are you not aware, that the 
power of discipline — the power to rule and govern the 
church — is actually expressed by this phrase feed the 
Church ? The Lexicographers will tell you, that it is 
fUsed to signify ruling, governing, both by classical and 
L scriptural writers, /See, dzc, JlIaL, ii, G. '• Tnat siiail 
irule my people Israel." Rev,, ii, 27. <* He shall rule 
^ them with a rod of iron" — It is the same word. Peter 
1 identifies this feeding, with doing the work of a Bishop, 
1 Peter, v, 2. Dr. Onderdonk has admitted that the 
^ word has this meaning;* but he claims, that this power 
I to rule, pertaining to the Presbyter-bishops, as he calls 
' them, or to the pastors as you call them, extended only 
I to the church members, whereas that of Timothy re- 
lated to the clergy; but the proof of this he has not 
adduced. His argument is, that Paul's charge to Ti- 
' mothy implies the grant of higher powers to Timothy, 
than what is implied in his charge to the Elders at 
Ephesus. 

*Works on Episcopacy, II. 432. 



124 

I have shown that the only difference is to be found 
in these two circumstances, viz: 1st, that Timothy's 
charge was addressed to him j:cersonally, because con- 
tained in an episth sent to him, while that to the^Elders 
was done collectively, they being all present together; 
and 2d, that while Timothy's charge is drawn out in 
more minute details, that to the Elders is more gen- 
eral but equally comprehensive, and neither of these 
circumstantial points of diilcrence, can be tortured into 
proof of Timothy's superior power,— as though Ae was 
to rule and govern the Elders, and they to rule and 
govern the ChurcL If Timothy's business was with 
the clergy, Paul has most strangely failed to render 
his charge to h\m in this matter, intelligible. 

Being thus deprived of these assumptions, you will 
find it impossible to establish the fourth point, so essen- 
tial to your argument, viz: that Timothy was consti- 
\Z\Zt L^iCCC!^^^ ""^ Ephcsus, or a traveling Bishop- 
should you object to my giving him a Diocesan cha- 
racter — and that he was, as such, possessed of author- 
ity to rule and govern the clergy, i. e. of power superior 
to Presbyter-bishops. You have said that Timothy 
was not placed over the Elders of Ephesus, when Paul 
delivered to them his charge. Paul had been absent 
from Ephesus for some time, so that according to your 
own admission, there w^as no *' Episcopal Bishop" there,, 
at that time. Now, when he sent for the Elders, or 
Pastors and Bishops of Ephesus, which you call them, 
to meet him at Miletus, and delivered to them his 
charge, it was evidently, see Acts, xx, 22, under the 
impression, that it was highly probable this w^ould be 
his last interview with them, and charge to them. Yet 



125 

not a word did he say to them about a superior Bishop; 
nor was the least hint dropped, that ever such an office 
would or ought to be appointed by them. It is very 
strange, if a superior grade of Bishops existed, and 
was to be permanent, that some allusion should not 
have been made to this high functionary, and to their du- 
ties toward him ! Especially, when it was so essential, 
as you teach, for him to keep up the line of succession. 
This silence of Paul, on the subject of ** Episcopal 
Bishops," when charging the Elders of Ephesus, and 
his further, and still more unaccountable, silence, 
when giving Timothy his instructions, prove conclu- 
sively, the utter fallacy of those assumptions, which 
lyou quote, in common with all the advocates of prela- 
cy, and without which, you could not even have the 
appearance of argument. As there is no proof, accor- 
ding to your own admission, of there having been a 
Diocesan, or Apostolic Bishop, at Ephesus, when Paul 
sent for the Elders to meet him at Miletus — as no plea 
will or can be put in, in favor of Timothy's being such 
at that time — and as there is, therefore, no proof of 
there having been a superior order of clergy in Ephe- 
sus, you are limited, in your argument, to these two 
points, neither of which you can establish, but both of 
which you have assumed, viz: 1. That, because Timo- 
jthy was called an Apostle, he was possessed of the 
ipowers of the twelve, and therefore superior to Pres- 
byter Bishops; and, 2. That Paul actually appointed 
i|him to this high dignity and station, after he had giv- 
jen his charge to the Elders of Ephesus. 
' You have called Timothy an Apostle, and so have 
other prelatical writers; but suppose he had been cal- 
11=^ 



126 

led such in the Scriptures — what then? The word 
Apostle is, sometimes, used in its generic sense, to mean 
expressly a messenger^ without defining his powers, 
and at others, in a specific sense, to denote the highest 
grade of officers in the church of God — the twelve 
men called and chosen of Jesus Christ, to be His wit- 
nesses throughout the earth. Before you can avail 
yourself of this circumstance, you must prove, that 
Timothy was called Apostle, in the very same specific 
sense, and with the very same powers, in which that 
term specially designated the twelve. This you have 
not attempted; nor has it been done, by any prelalical 
writers, that have embarked, at any time, in this con- 
troversy. 

But not to insist on this; 1 deny, that there is any 
evidence, that Timothy was ever called anApostle. 
In 1 Thess.y i, 1, Paul and Silvanus, and Timotheus, 
are named as the writers of this epistle, and in 1 Thess,^ 
ii, G, Paul says, '*nor of man sought we glory, when 
we might have been burdensome as the Apostles of 
Christ.^' It is only by inference, or implication, at 
most then, that Timothy was called an Apostle. But 
is that inference correct? It will not be denied, that 
Paul often speaks of himself in the plural number. 
That he does so in 1 Thess,, ii, 6, is evident from the 
context. The first two verses, of this second chapter, 
show, that he had reference to himself alone, for Timo* 
thy was not with him at Philippi. T/iess,, ii, ], 2. 

Beside, there is proof, in the epistle itself, that w^hile 
Paul entered, by christian courtesy, the names of Timo- 
thy and Silvanus, as concurring with him, in that epis- 
tle, he, nevertheless, expressed himself so as to have 



137 

u distinctly understood, that he, personally, was tiie 
I writer. Compare 1 Tliess., iii, 4-11; iv, 9, 10; v, 1, 
12, 14, 23, 25, 27. 

Still further, Paul was very careful to distinguish 
himself, as an Apostle by office, fronn Timothy. Both 
in 2 Cor., i, 1, and CoL, i, 1, he uses these words, 
" Paul, an Apostleoi Jesus Christ, and Timothy our bro- 
ther:' It does not at all comport with his usual mo- 
desty, to assume to himself a dignified title, and to with- 
hold' it from Timothy. There is no place, where Paul 
uses his own and Timothy's names together, in which 
he ever recognizes Timothy as an Apostle like him- 
self. Compare 2 Cor., i, 1; Phil, i, 1; Col, \, 1; 
1 Thess., i, 1; 2 Thess., \, 1. It behooves you to ac- 
count for this very singular punctiliousness on the part 
of Paul, if Timothy was an Apostle. The proof is 
much stronger that he was not, than that he was. All 
your proof, therefore, of Timothy's superiority in of- 
fice, on this ground, vanishes. 

The second assumption, which you have not proved, 
is, that Paul appointed him over the Church, as Episco- 
pal Bishop, or Apostle at Ephesus. Paul's own ac- 
count of this matter is, that he left him there for a spe- 
cial purpose, when he himself went into Macedonia. 
I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went 
into Macedonia, 1 Tim., i, 3. Strange, marvelously 
strange, language, to hold, if Paul meant to say, that 
he had appointed and placed him over the church as 
" Episcopal Bishop !" The design of his leaving Timo- 
thy behind him, as the context shows, was to counter- 
act the heretical Jewish teachers, who were giving 
heed to fables, &c. Did Paul make Timothy Bishop, 



128 

to get rid, himself, of the responsibihty of di-cipiiiiiiii. 
these false teachers? The idea is ridiculous. 

This is the only account we have in the New Tes- 
tament, of Timothy's ever being at Ephesus, as Mr. 
Barnes told Dr. Onderdonk. So far from there being 
proof, that he was appointed permanent '^ Episcopal 
Bishop,*' over the church at Ephesus, there is proof to 
the contrary. Paul states, expressly, that the service 
for which he had besought him to remain at Ephesus, 
was to be rendered till he came back. See 1 T/m., iv, 
13, a7i(I iii, 14, 15. Beside, there is just as much proof, 
that Paul appointed him Bishop of Thessalonica, as of 
Ephesus. Indeed, more, for he speaks more like exerci- 
sing an appointing power in the former, than in tlie latter 
case. See 1 Thess,, iii, 1, 2. In the latter case, he 
besought, but in the former, he sent, Timothy to do 
jsomething, which, according to your views of church 
government, pertained to an '* Episcopal Bishop." 

It is certain, that Timothy did not permanently re- 
main at Ephesus. He was with Paul at Rome, in his 
first imprisonment, and united with him, in the letters 
to the Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. There 
is not the shadow of proof, in the 2d epistle to Timo- 
thy, that it was directed to him at Ephesus. There is 
proof of the contrary; for Paul tells him, he had sent 
Tychicus to Ephesus. 2 Ti??i., iv, 12. It would rather 
appear from the following verse, that it was directed 
to him at Troas. Tychicus needed not a letter of in- 
troduction to Timothy. The language is not of that 
tenor. The note, added at the close of the 2d epistle 
to Timothy, declaring him to have been appointed Bi- 
shop of Ephesus, you are well aware, has no author!- 



129 

ty, cither as Scripture, or history. The epistle writ- 
ten by Paul, to the church at Ephesus, recognizes no- 
thing like an ^'Episcopal Bishop," there. You canno 
adduce any proof, from the Scriptures, that Timothy 
was ever permanently resident in Ephesus — that he 
ever was ordained ^^ Episcopal Bishop'^ there, or any 
where else — or that his stay at Ephesus, was any thing 
but temporary, and for a special purpose. 

Dr. Ondcrdonk correctly says, ''no argument is 
worth taking into account, which has not a palpa- 
ble bearing on the clear and naked topic — the scriptu- 
ral evidence of Episcopacy.""^ For the scriptural tes- 
timony, and history, in this matter, set forth distinctly, 
and fully, I refer you to Dr. Wilson, who sums up the 
i whole to this effect; that '^ the office of Timothy was 
given to him prior to his visiting Ephesus. The duty 
assigned him, was afterwards declared to be the work 
of an Evangelist, 2 Tim,^ iv, 5. His appointment to 
Ephesus, was temporary, being hmited, at farthest, to 
the time when Paul should come to him. But an ear- 
lier period of its termination, was evidently, left to his 
discretion, which he exercised, by coming to Paul into 
Macedonia. Thus there was a description of the con- 
nection, if any had been fixed; but none such was in- 
tended; the epistle was neither a commission nor an 
ordination, but a mere letter of instruction^ directing 
him, in the discharge of his high and important ofRce 
of Evangelist.'*! 

* Works on Episcopacy, I., p. 41'2. 

• Primitive (Jovernment gf tbe Christian churches, pp. 261, 26'2, 



th. 



LETTER IX. 

titus and barnabas. 

Rev. and dear sir: 

The case of Titus, which you cite, in proof of the 
Apostolical succession, is no more conclusive, than that 
of Timothy. They are substantially the same — with 
but one or two slight shades of difference, wholly cir- 
cumstantial. You confidently affirm, that Titus was 
*' placed over the church in Crete, by St. Paul, as their 
Apostle or Bishop.'' The proof you offer, is, first, 
what Paul says, Titus, i, 5, *'For this cause, left I 
thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the 
things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every 
city, as I had appointed thee." I know not what to 
think of the assertion, you so recklessly make, imme- 
diately after quoting this passage. You say, ** you, no 
doubt, are familiar with the fact, that there were one 
hundred cities in the island of Crete, and yet St. Paul 
gives the charge of every church to Titus.'' Uo you 
mean to say, that churches had been organized in 
every cityl and that Titus was appointed to oversee 
them ain Your language would make that impres- 
sion; but I cannot think you designed it to do so. The 
proof of the fact you cannot produce. Paul's direc- 
tions to Timothy imply the contrary. 

Dr. Onderdonk has presented the argument as fully 
and forcibly as it can be. Like that, from the case of 



132 

Timothy, however, it turns on the word ** ///ow," which 
he makes emphatic, as though there were other and 
inferior ministers, but Titus preeminently, emphatical- 
ly, exclusively, was appointed to ordain elders in every 
city, and to govern as Apostolic Bishop. This, like the 
former, is begging the question. Before this argument 
can have any conclusiveness, it is necessary to prove, 
1st, that there were Presbyter-bishops ordained in 
Crete when Paul left it. 2d. That Titus was appoint- 
ed with powers superior, as a permanent officer, or, as 
you have it, placed over the one hundred churches in 
Crete. 

What the facts in the case were, we can best ascer- 
tain by referring to the terms and design of Titus' ap- 
pointment. He was left in Crete — a strange word to 
denote per??ianent appointment to an oflice; but a very 
appropriate one to use, where a special important work, 
commenced by one under the necessity of leaving the 
place, was assigned to another and fellow laborer, who 
was to stay behind. Paul, it seems, had been in Crete, 
and had preached in some of its cities. That he did 
so in allj there is no proof. As was his custom, when 
the gospel was first introduced and blessed of God 
among a people, he was careful to select appropriate 
men for the olliccs of Presbyter and Deacon — in due 
season to ordain them — and thus to give the churches 
he formed a permanent organization. He first planted, 
and afterwards ordained. Sufficient time had not 
elapsed for him, after the conversions which had taken 
place, and the fruits produced by his and Titus' labors, 
to ordain Elders. To perfect this work, when called 
from Crete, he left Titus behind him. ** For this cause," 



133 

says he, left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in 
order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in 
every city, as I had appointed thee.** 

The original word, here translated appointed, is never 
used, in the New Testament, in the sense of ordaining 
to an office. It means to set in order, to arrange, to 
regulate, and evidently refers, in this case, to the plans, 
views and purposes, which Paul had made known 
to Titus, before he departed from Crete, and for the 
carrying out and accomplishing of which, he left him 
there. Two ministers, traveling and laboring together, 
and, having been blessed of God to the conversion of 
sinners in several towns or villages, where no church 
had been organized, would not immediately ordain Eld- 
ers or Deacons, or organize churches. They would 
take sufficient time first, to prove the truth and stabili- 
ty of their work. After having arranged their plans, 
and selected the appropriate men for Elders and Dea- 
cons, or given appropriate instruction, should the one 
of chief influence and age be called away, what more 
natural, than that the other should be left behind to 
consummate the work? and what more natural, than 
that he should express his wishes, and state the arrange- 
ments he judged proper, tobe carried into effect? Such 
things occur among Bishops, claiming neither to be 
Diocesans, nor of a superior order. 

Such, precisely, was the work, to which Paul depu- 
ted his friend and fellow laborer, Titus. Where is 
there proof, in all this, that Titus was of Diocesan au- 
thority] or that Paul constituted him Bishop oi a su- 
perior order in Crete 1 or that he placed him over the 
churches in Crete, as their permanent ruler? None 
12 



134 

whatever. When the chief architect leaves a work- 
man behind him to carry out his design, and to finish 
the building they had commenced and been laboring on 
together, who ever dreams, that he is to become per- 
manent ruler of the house, and to appoint his succes- 
sors, and they others, ever after him ? The idea is ab- 
surd. Equally so, does it seem to me, is it to argue, 
on such ground, the permanent superiority of Titus, as 
Apostolic Bishop of Crete. 

Titus was appointed to discharge an important duty, 
when sent by Paul to Corinth with the first epistle. 
See 2 Cor.y viii, 6, 16; xii, 18. It appears from va- 
rious passages, that Titus had been successful in recti- 
fying the various disorders which had existed among 
this people, over whom officers had not been appointed 
by Paul. 2 Coi\, vii, G-IG. Having met Paul in Ma- 
cedonia, and given him an account of his success, ii 
refreshed his heart, and he sent him to them, with the 
second epistle, and soon after followed in person. Didl 
Paul appoint Titus Bishop of Corinth, because he sent 
him to rectify its disorders, and they manifested their 
obedience to him'? There is just as valid a reason to 
believe he did, as to believe that he placed him per- 
manent ruler or Bishop apostolic over the churches of 
Crete. 

So far from Titus being made either permanent or 
superior Bishop of Crete, it appears, from T//., iii, 12, 
that the arrangement was intended to be only tempo- 
rary, *^ Wlien I shall send Artemas unto thee or Ty- 
chichus, be diligent to come unto me at JS^icopolis,'^ By 
that time, he would have done the work for which he 
had been left, and Paul, who loved him so dearly, could 



135 

ijol bear to be long deprived of his companionship in his 
labors. See 2 Cor., ii, 12, 13. 

Paul expected to meet him at Troas, but being dis- 
appointed, went in pursuit of him into Macedonia, 
where he was his companion. He was with him also 
at Jerusalem. See Gal., ii, 1. Does this look like be- 
ing placed permanently over the churches in Crete? 
Beside, Paul states, explicitly, that he departed to Dal- 
matia, 2 Tim,, iv, 10; and whatever he did there, or at 
Corinth, or Crete, is not known. There is no more 
proof, therefore, that Titus was superior Bishop of 
Crete, than that Timothy was of Ephesus. What you 
alledge about his power, to ordain Elders, and to reject 
heretics, does not prove him to have been an Apostle. 
I present your argument, as it was long since put into 
the mortar and beaten to powder, by the late Dr. Ma- 
son. 

^^ Episcopal Ai^gumenU 

'^ Titus ordained elders in every city. Therefore, 
Titus was Bishop of Crete. 

*' Parallelism. 

'^ Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every church, 
to wit: in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, at least. Acts, 
xiv, 20-23. Therefore, Paul and Barnabas were joint 
Bishops of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. 
^' Episcopal Argument, 

^' Timothy instructed and charged the Ephesian Eld- 
ers. Therefore, he was Bishop of Ephesus ! 
'• Parallelism, 

*^ Paul instructed and charged the Ephesian Elders. 
ActSj XX, 17. Therefore, Paul was Bishop of Ephesus. 



136 

*^ Episcopal Argument, 

*^ Timothy had power to inflict censure on Presby- 
ters, and even to excommunicate heretics. Therefore^ 
Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus. 
•' Pcn^alldism. 

*^ Paul had power to excommunicate offenders in the 
Corinthian church. 1 Co?\, v, 5. ' Therefore, Paul wa» 
Bishop of Corinth. 

^^The parallel might be run further; but the fore- 
going will evince, that the very same mode of reason- 
ing which proves Timothy to have been Bishop of 
Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, will also prove every one 
of the Apostles, to have been Bishop of every place 
where he exercised any of the functions, which the 
Episcopal church has restrained to her prelates. Thiii 
her advocates know to be absurd, and so docs all the 
world beside. ''^-^ 

There yet remains one other consideration, some- 
times adduced, in proof of Titus being an Apostolic 
Bishop, that he, as were Timothy and others, was 
called, at least by implication, an Apostle. This is one 
ground on which you affirm as **fact that Barnabas 
was raised to the Apostleship." Luke says, ActSy xiv, 
14, ** which when the Apostles^ Barnabas and Paul, 
heard of,'^ &c. Docs, then, the use of the name Apos- 
tles prove, that all they, to whom it was given, were 
raised to the Apostleship ? You certainly are aware, 
that the word has its generic import, and its specific 
signification as a title of office, just as have the words 
Presbyter and Deacon. By what act of logic do you 
claim, it must always be specific, when it avails tha 

*Tlie works of Dr. Mason, vol. 3, p. 190, 19L 



137 

cause of Episcopacy, and generic, when it does not 1 
We, who maintain ministerial parity, affirm, from the 
word of God, that, as a term of office, the word Apos- 
tle denoted those, whom Jesus Christ Himself called, 
chose, and commissioned, to be the witnesses of his 
resuri^ection, to whom He gave power and authority as 
the DISPENSERS of miraculous gifts — and as the inspired 
REVELATORS of Divine truth — and those only. 

Whatever authority they had, as rulers and govern- 
ors, it was in exact accordance with the Saviour's own 
prohibition of any one attempting, or thinking, to have 
preeminence or superiority. As Presbyters and Min- 
isters, they officiated in ordaining, organizing churches, 
administering discipline, and ruling and governing the 
I churches, see Jlcts, xv ; xvi, 4 — calling themselves, as 
j we have shown. Presbyters and fellow Elders. When, 
i therefore, the term Apostle, is given to those that were 
i uninspired, unable to impart miraculous gifts, and not 
, called, qualified, and deputed, by Christ Himself, to be 
1 witnesses of His resurrection, it must, according to a 
j. well known and established law of speech, be under- 
; stood, in some other and appropriate sense, and not spe- 
' cifically as a title of office. 

That it was used in other senses, will not be denied. 

I The twelve were the Apo^les of Christ, but the breth- 

j ren w^ere *^ Apostles of the churches.'' See 2 Cor., 

j viii, 23. Paul is very careful, in the case of Titus, as 

' well as of Timothy, never to call him an Apostle of 

j Jesus Christ. But he says, *' whether any inquire of 

Titus, he is my partner and fellow helper, concerning 

you; or our brethren be inquired of, they are the ??ies^ 

♦ sengers (Apostles,) of the churches and the glory of 

12=^ 



1S8 

Chri&f You must, therefore, settle the point, whe- 
ther Barnabas, and Timothy, and Titus, and Epaphro 
ditus, and others called Apostles, were calted so, be- 
cause commissioned and sent of Jesus Christ — His 
Jlposiles OFFICIALLY, Or, because they were commis- 
sioned and sent by the churches for a particular work — 
" Apostles of the churches/' This is indispensable, 
before you can legitimately venture to urge an argu- 
ment, in favor of their being raised to the Apostleship, 
from the fact that they were called Apostles. 

Epaphroditus was an Apostle of the Philippians, i. e., 
the messenger they dispatched, Phil^ ii, 25. Paul and 
Barnabas were the messengers dispatched by the 
church at Antioch, see Jlcts, xiii, 1-4; and, therefore, 
both Barnabas and Paul were called, while engaged in 
the same mission at Lystra, the Messengers or Apos- 
tles — Jlcis, xiv, 14. 

You will not, I presume, in opposition to Dr. Onder- 
donk's argument on the subject, say, that Paul and 
Barnabas were ordained Apostles of Jesus Christ at 
Antioch, by the laying on of the hands of Presbyters. 
It behooves you, therefore, to show when Barnabas 
was ordained such. I say tiiat he never was, and chal- 
lenge you to produce a solitary case, where any one 
but the twelve are called the Apostles of Jesus Christ, 
which, as Paul uses it in almost all his epislles, was ap- 
propriately their official title. You will find some cal- 
led Messengers or Apostles, in general, as John had his 
Messengers or Apostles, Luke, vii, 24, and Christ, too, 
Luke, ix, 52, and some, Apostles or Messengers of the 
churches, 2 Cor., viii, 23, but none emphatically and 
officially the Apostles of Jesus Christ, You will 



139 

find also, that, even in Paul's clays, there were men pre- 
tending and claiming to have been raised to the Apos- 
tleship. But he says, ^'such are false Apostles, rfe- 
ceitful workers, transforxMing themselves into the 
Apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for satan himself 
is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is 
no great thing if his ministers also be transformed, as 
the ministers of righteousness," 2 Con, xi, 13-15. 

It seems that the churches, at a very early day, 
were infested by these arrogant pretenders. They 
found it necessary to put their claims to the test — to try 
them by the rule laid down by Christ; for the Angel of 
the church of Ephesus, is commended by Him for hav- 
ing subjected their credentials, and pretensions, to the 
test, and rejected them. ^' Thou hast tried them which 
say they are Apostles and are not, and hast found them 
liars.^^ Rev,, ii, 2. 

So much for the use of the name. It was rather a 
suspicious affair, according to Paul, and the Saviour, 
for a man to claim to be an Apostle of Christ, either at 
Corinth or at Ephesus. But you will urge, most pro- 
bably, that Barnabas, along with Paul, ordained El- 
ders, and confirmed the souls of the disciples. Acts, 
xiv, 22-23. The power of ordaining, I have shown^ 
was not among those enumerated by Christ as per- 
taining to the Apostleship. It is not in the inventory. 
It belongs to the Presbyterate. As Presbyters, they 
ordained ; so that the power of confirming is all you 
have left to prove Barnabas to have been an Apostle 
of Christ. There is no proof to be produced from the 
New Testament, of the Apostles having practiced such 
a sacramental rite as that in use among Episcopalians 



140 

and Roman Catholics, called conlirmalion. They con- 
firmed CHURCHES, and confirmed the souls of the 
disciples, which they could do, and which is still done 
by the ministers of Christ, by preaching the word — ex- 
horting and instructing, and by ministerial visitation. 
You ask a great deal too much, and draw too large a 
conclusion, when you require us to lake such passages 
as proof of such a rite. 

I object not to the use of confirmation practiced in 
your churches, as a means of human device for bring- 
ing the catechumen, the adult, the newly converted 
person, those who are about publicly to enter into cov- 
enant with God and with His church, to recognize, as- 
sume and solemnly profess, their cordial consent to their 
obligations, to lead a holy life, and to walk in the faith 
and obedience of Christ; for a similar practice obtains,, 
and is found very useful, in most of our Presbyterian^ 
churches. But to dignify it as a sacrament or Divine 
ordinance, and to i)rctcnd that you have power, by the 
laying on of your hands, to impart the Holy Spirit, is 
a thing so pericctly absurd, that I cannot persuade my- 
self you could ever attempt or imagine it. 

The Apostles of Jesus Christ, had power, by the lay- 
ing on of their hands, to impart the Holy Spirit. This, 
however, was done visibly, miraculously, and consist- 
ed in endowing the converts with power to work mira-^ 
cles. None other than the twelve possessed this pow-l 
er. See Acts, viii, 14-19; xix, 1-6. So Paul longed 
to see the christians at Rome whose faith was spoken 
of throughout the world, that he might impart to 
them some spiritual gift, to the end they might be es- 
tablished or confirmed, Rom,^ i, 11. It does not appear, 



141 

that, whoever first organized the church at Rome, 
there had any Apostle, at that time, visited them, w^ho 
had thus, and in this most important way, as Chrisfs 
witnesses and Apostles, essayed to confirm them. 

Moreover, they were miraculously qualified, as in the 
cases of Ananias and Sapphira, and of Simon Magus, 
to detect imposition; and it occasionally happened, 
that, under their preaching, the Holy Spirit fell upon 
the converts. In all respects, the functions of their 
office were, either miraculous or extraordinary. Be- 
fore you can claim that Titus or Barnabas were, or, 
that any of your Episcopal Bishops are, successors to 
the twelve in the apostolic office, you must SHOW 
YOUR CREDENTIALS: i. e., you must prove, that 
you possess supernatural endowments, can work mira- 
cles, and visibly impart the Holy Spirit, all which 
things were peculiar qualifications or functions of th9 
Apostolic office. Till this is done, we deem ourselves 
bound to treat with utter disrespect, every claim to 
superior reverence for your Bishops, as Vicars and 
Apostles of Jesus Christ. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 
solemnly disclaimed the title=^— would not pretend to 
Apostolic authority, although ordained, as you say. by 
St. Peter. It would be strange, indeed, passing strange, 
that the Apostles should have entrusted, to an ecclesi- 
astical corporation, w^ilh power of perpetuating itself, 
all their ministerial rights and authority, without the 
.'miraculous gifts and endowments necessary to qualify 
them for discharging the functions of such an import- 
ant office. Our credulity cannot be so imposed upon. 

The views, which I have given, of the nature, dutiesj 

♦ See Igna., Ep. ad., Rom. 4, et ad. Trail, 3. 



142 

and design, of the Apostolic office, and which render it, 
essentially and characleristically, diflerent from the 
Episcopacy, you are certainly aware, are not pe- 
culiar to non-Episcopal denominations. Dr. Rice, in 
his controversy with Bishop Ravcnscroft, quotes the 
view^s of Dr. Barrow, which, though employed in ar- 
gument against Popery, are as decisive against pre- 
lacy. I conclude this lettter with the extracts he 
made from the works of this celebrated divine. I 
might also refer you to Archbishop Potter, and to 
Bishops Hoadly, Pearson, Davenant and Fell, and to 
Whitley, Willett, Hooker, Chillingworlh, Dodwell, 
&c., but it is unnecessary. Until the argument of Bar- 
row is met, we cannot but regard all Episcopal preten- 
sions to Apostolic authority, as usurpations. 

** The Apostolic office, as such, w^as personal and 
temporary; and therefore according to its nature and 
design, not successive nor communicable to others in 
perpetual descendence from them. 

*'It was, as such, in all rcs|)ects extraordinary, con- 
ferred in a special manner, designed for special pur- 
])Oses, discharged by special aids, endowed with spe- 
cial privileges, as was needful for the propagation of 
Christianity, and founding of churches. 

**To that oliicc it was requisite, that the person 
should have an immediate desiguiition and commission 
from God; such as St. Paul so often doth insist upon 
for asserting his title to the office ; Paul an ^^post/c, not 
frcin men, or hi/ man — not hj men, sait/i St, Chrysos- 
torn, this is a property of the Jlpostks. 

*^ It v^^as requisite that an Apostle should be able to 
attest concerning our Lord's resurrection or ascension, 
either immediately as the twelve, or by evident conse- 
quence, as St. Paul. Thus St. Peter implied, at the 
choice of Matthias, wherefore of those men which have 
accompanied with us — must one be ordained to be a wit^ 



143 

ness with us of the resurrection ; and, am I not (sailh 
St. Paul,) an Apostle, have I not seen the Lord? accord- 
ing to that of Ananias, the God of our Fathers, hath 
chosen thee, and thou shouldst know his will, and see that 
just one, and shouldst hear the voice of his mouth ; for 
thou shalt bear witness unto all men, of what thou hast 
seen and heard, 

**It was nefbdful, also, that an Apostle should be en- 
dowed with miraculous gifts and graces, enabling him 
both to assure his authority, and to execute his office; 
wherefore St. Paul calleth these, • the marks of an 
Apostle, the which were wrought by him among the Cor- 
inthians in all patience, (or persevering,) in signs, and 
wonders, and mighty deeds, 

** It was, also, in St. Chrysostom's opinion, proper to 
an Apostle, that he should be able, according to his 
discretion, in a certain and conspicuous manner to im- 
part spiritual gifts; as St. Peter and St. John did at 
Samaria; which to do, according to that Father, was 
the peculiar gift and privilege of the Apostles. 
I, '4t was also a privilege of an Apostle, by virtue of 
;his commission from Christ, to instruct all nations in 
the doctrines and law of Christ; He had right and war- 
rant to exercise His function every where; His charge 
was universal and indefinite ; the whole world was His 
province ; He was not affixed to any one place, nor 
could he be excluded from any; He was (as St. Cyril 
1 calleth him,) an Oecumenical Judge, and an instructor 
of all the subcelcsiial world, 

j ** Apostles also did govern in an absolute manner, ac- 
, cording to discretion, as being guided by infallible as- 
sistance, to the which they might upon occasion appeal, 
land affirm, it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and 
us. Whence their writings have passed for inspired, 
and therefore canonical, or certain rules of faith and 
i practice. 

I *' It did belong to them to found churches, to consti- 

jtute pastors, to settle orders, to correct ofiences, to 

perform all such acts of sovereign, spiritual power, in 

virtue of the same divine assistance, according to the 



144 

authority which the Lord had given to them for cdifica^ 
tion; as we see practiced by St. Paul. 

**In fine, the Apostleship was (as St. Chrysostom 
tellelh us) a kusiness fraught tcith ten thousand good 
things, both greater than al/ privileges of grace, and com* 
prehensive of them. 

'* Now, such an office, consisting of so many extra- 
ordinary privileges and miraculous powei's, which were 
requisite for the foundation of the church, and the dif- 
fusion of Christianity, against the manifold difficulties 
and disadvantages, which it then needs must encoun- 
ter, WAS NOT DESIGNED TO CONTINUE BV DERIVATION; 
FOR IT CONTAINETII IN IT DIVERS THINGS, WHICH AP- 
PARENTLY AVERE NOT COMMUNICATED. AND WHICH NO 

MAN WITHOUT GROSS IMPOSTURE AND HY- 

POCRISY COULD CHALLENGE TO HIMSELF. 

'* Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicate 
it; they did indeed appoint standing pastors and teach* 
ers in each churc^h; they did assume fellow laborers 
and assistants in the work of preaching and govern- 
ance, but they did not constitute Apostles, cqunl to 
themselves in authority, privileges or gifts. For who 
knoweth not (saith St. Austim,) that pnncipate of Jipos- 
tleship to he preferred before any Episcopacy? and the 
Bishops (saith BcIIarmine,) have no part of the true 
Jlposlolic authority.''^ — Review nf Bishop Ravencroffs 
Pa?nphlcf, pp. 7G-7. 



LETTER X. 

PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION, AND ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CAL- 

^^N. 

Rev. and dear sir: 

In the prosecution of your argument, for the transfer 
of their authority to the *^ Episcopal Bishops," the Apos- 
tles' successors, you anticipate an objection, founded 
on the ** power of ordination'' exercised by the Elders. 
*-'Hcre," you observe, ^*it may not be out of place to 
:mention, that some have supposed, that the power of 
ordination was also exercised by the Elders, and if so, 
it would, in a great degree, do away with the necessity 
for the continuation of the Apostolic office. That it 
.was only an office created for specific and limited pur- 
poses. The passage of scripture relied on to sustain 
this position, is found in the first epistle to Timothy, 
and is in these words: neglect not the gift that is in thee 
which teas given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of 
the hands of the Presbytery ^ 

I was not aware, that any '^ relied on" this passage 
"to sustain the position," that the Apostle's *^ office w^as 
created for specific and limited purposes." Other proof 
is adduced for this purpose. I have already quoted it, 
affirming that the Saviour's own account, of His design 
; in appointing the Apostles, and of the powers conferred 
upon them, is the only authority, to which rightful ap- 
13 



146 

peal can be made, for determining the nature, object, 
and duration of the Apostolic office. 

The text is, indeed, cited to prove ordination by the 
laying on of the hands of the Presbyters; but how 
Presbyterial ordination could ^* do away with the ne- 
cessity for the continuance of the Apostolic office,'^ is 
not obvious. You have assumed, that the grand dis- 
tinguishing power of the Apostolic office, was to ordain 
and govern, and of course, should any inferior to the 
Apostles, be proved to possess the power of ordaining 
and governing, you infer that there would be no neces- 
sity for its continuance. There might, or there might 
not, be such a necessity for its continuance. Whether 
there is, or not, is only to be determined, by referring 
to the Saviour's design in the appointment of His Apos- 
tles. General reasonings and inferences arc not, and 
cannot be satisfactory, here. ** To the law and to the 
testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it 
is because there is no light in them.*' Is,, viii, 20. 

I presume, however, you do not mean, that we non- 
Episcopalians rehj on this text to prove — what we say 
its commission and design demonstrate — that the Apos- 
tolic office was not to be perpetual; but only that Pres- 
byters ordained. This fact you deny. *• Kvcn if it be 
admitted," you remark, '' that this passage sustained 
the position advanced, and that Timothy was ordained 
by the laying on of the hands of the Presbyters, it by 
no means follows, that therefore there was no differ- 
ence between Apostles and Elders." True : nor does 
it follow, that the power of ordaining was peculiar to 
the Apostles, which, it is essential to your argument, 
it should be. 



147 

You evidently feel, that this text appears to favor 

he view^s you condemn. To parry its force, you 

|uote Paul's words in 2 Tim.^ i, 6: ** wherefore I put 

ihee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God, 

^vhich is in thee by the putting on of my hands," 

and observe : '*So that you perceive that St. Paul, an 

Apostle, was present, and was. the ordainer, and that 

the Presbytery only signified their assent to the act, 

by the laying on of their hands, as they do in our own 

church at the present day." That Paul was present, 

you rightly infer; but that he exclusively ordained, and 

the Presbytery merely assented, having no power to 

ordain, are things remaining to be proved. Dr. Mason, 

long since, challenged prelatical writers to produce a 

single instance, from the scriptures, where the imposi- 

f tion of hands is used to denote simple assent. To say 

;lit might mean this, is to beg the question. Other proof 

)'is necessary. It is just as easy for me to say — with 

equal right, and as fair a pretence — that Paul was the 

.presiding officer, the Head or mouth of the Presbytery, 

doing and expressing that, in which they co-operated^ 

.jand which they authorized; *^so that you perceive,'' to 

J use your own words slightly changed, ^^that St. Paul, 

j an Apostle, was present, and was the ordainer, and 

[ that the Presbytery co-operated with him, in the act 

j which they approved and authorized, by the laying on 

• of their hands, as they do in our churches at the pre- 

, sent day." 

\ There is, certainly, more propriety, and consistency, 

I in this version, than in yours. For what, I ask, does 

' the laying on of the hands of your Presbytery, along 

with your own, amount to, in your church ? Simply 



148 

to an assent, you say, and no more. But can your 
Presbytery do any thing else ] They must assent, 
whether they will or not. You have the power; and 
it is in vain for them to say nay, if you choose to ordain. 
Pardon me, if I say, that to me it appears perfectly un- 
meaning — worse than pantomimical. What right has 
your Presbytery to assent, or dissent, if you exclusive- 
ly have the power of ordaining "? Will you allow them 
to sit in judgment on your acts, to interrogate you 
about the man's qualifications, to demand of you a re- 
port on the subject of your examination of him, and 
overrule or veto your purpose to ordain? Will yoii, 
do you, acquaint them with the whole history of the 
case, and aflbrd them a full and fair opportunity to give 
their intelligent approval or assent to your doing ? Or, 
is it a blind deference to your superior judgment and 
power — an assenting to what you do, the act of their 
submission ? If it be a mere token of submission to the 
Bishop, let it so be understood. But why ask of your 
Presbytery, and call it, their assent, if they have no au- 
thority, power, or agency whatever, toco-operate in the 
ordination? Dr. Bloomficld=*^' confesses that the prepo- 
sition *'with,'' denotes concurrence in the thing, but 
how far that extended, he says we are not informed— 
certainly something further than assent. Your form 
of ^'ordering'' a priest and deacon, certainly implies 
more. A priest must present the candidate to the 
Bishop, and profess to have inquired concerning him, 
and also examined him, and to judge him qualified for 
the office. This is a great deal more than assent. The .^ 
examination is just what is done in our Presbyteries, 

*^ his Greek testainent, ad loc. 



149 

by some one deputed to elicit proof of the requisite 
qualifications. Ordination, with us, is an act of concur- 
rence, a co-operation of Presbyters. With you, too, 
it is effected through the concurrence and co-operation 
of a Bishop and Presbyter. It is, therefore, to all in- 
tents and purposes, substantially and truly, Presbyte- 
rian ordination. With you, the Bishop is the perma- 
nent moderator of the Presbytery; with us, the mode- 
rator is chosen from time to time. If the Presbyters 
with you consent to the Bishop as their permanent pre- 
siding officer, be it so; but the fact, that they lay their 
hands on the head of the candidate, along with the 
Bishops, and that according to the Council of Carthage,"* 
all the Presbyters present united with the Bishop in 
this thing — proves, that they too have some other agen- 
cy in the matter, than farcically to signify their assent 
to an act, which, if the power pertains exclusively to 
the Bishop, could be done without it. 

Your own form recognizes the necessity of consulta- 
tion, of inquiry, and of course co-operation, on the part 
of others — else why put the questions to those present, 
whether they know aught that should prevent the can- 
didate from being ordained ? It is the public visible 
memorial preserved in your own forms, that Presbyte- 
rian ordination, L e. ordination by Presbyters, was the 
original practice, and that Episcopal ordination is the 
usurpation, to which your Presbyters assent — a custom 
proving, that to them originally pertained the power. If 
the Bishop of right has the exclusive authority, and as 
you have taught, possesses all the oflScial gifts and pow- 
ers to render his act of infallible validity, how ridicu 

* Coun. Carth., IV, c, 4. 

13^ 



150 

lous is your form ! The truth is, your form, like our own^ 
proceeds on the assumption, that the Bishop is but the 
organ, through which the church — who are the judges 
in the matter, as I have shown — expresses its judgment, 
as to the candidate's qualifications, and publicly recog- 
nizes him as a minister of Christ, called and chosen of 
God. 

This is all, at most, that you can make of PauFs lay- 
ing on of his hands at Timothy's ordination, if it was 
even such. That it was such, you will find it difiiculti 
to prove. It may, with good reason, be questioned, bull I 
granting that Paul presided on the occasion, and that 
his imposition of hands, was, for the purpose of ordina- 
tion, it was done, according to your own confession, 
with the concurrence and co-operation of the Presby- 
tery; for a mere assent to it, is nonsense, if the Pres- 
bytery have no co-ordinate authority, and if co-opera«f 
tion be not meant by the significant act of laying on of 
hands. Paul recognized their co-ordinate authority, 
just as Peter and John did when they called themselves 
Presbyters. The act of ordination was their conjoint 
act. If you make Paul's imposition of hands an act of 
special and peculiar authority — that which pertained to 
him^as an Apostle, and not as a Presbyter — then must 
the gift imparted to Timothy, of which he speaks, have 
been the power of working miracles, or the Spirit visi» 
bly and miraculously bestowed, which it was the pro- 
vince of Apostles only to communicate, and which they 
were wont to do to others than to ordained ministers. 
The power of ordaining, we have shown, was not, ex- 
clusively, and peculiarly, part of the Apostolic office, 



151 

but pertained to them as Presbyters, and in common 
with Presbyters. 

You. do not seem to be fully satisfied, with your own 
explanation of this matter. For you remark, ''it is 
conceded by the most learned men, among those who 
deny the continuance of the Apostolic office in the 
church, that the word presbyter, as used by the Apostles, 
V. means the office to which Timothy was ordained, and 
5 not the persons who ordained him. So that the pas- 
: sage would read, with the laying on of hands, to con- 
. fer the Presbytery, or Presbytership, or clerical office. 
Such is the opinion of Jerome and Ambrose, early Fa- 
thers in the church, who hold to the Apostolic succes- 
sion, and of Calvin and Grotius, who difler — the for- 
mer, however, viz: Calvin, on the plea of necessity, as 
he could not receive the Apostolic ministry, from cir- 
cumstances said by him to bo beyond his control.'' 

Let the criticism, for a moment, be granted, to what 
then, I ask, was Timothy ordained ? You answer, to 
the Presbytership or Clerical office. Was this identi- 
cal with the Episcopate? We say it was, and that 
the terms Bishops and Presbyters were used to denote 
the same officers. But you cannot admit it, for at 
once the Bishop's preeminence, or the superiority of 
his order, disappears. What proof, then, have you, 
that ever Timothy, was ordained a Bishop in your 
sense of the word] For all th^ duties he performed, 
and those to which Paul charged him, he needed no 
higher power, than that of his Presbytership. To 
prove Timothy's Episcopate, according to y^our views 
of *' Episcopal Bishops," you must maintain, that the 
Presbytership was the very same thing. Should you 



152 

so affirm, I refer you, in disproof of the assertion, to 
Ignatius,* who as carefully recognizes a distinction be- 
tween the Bishop and Presbyter)^, as you do, although 
not in the same high church import which you attach 
to the terms or offices. The criticism will not help 
you. 

Chrysostom,t that golden mouthed preacher, and af- 
ter him, Thophylaet, boldly says, *' the Apostle is not 
speaking here of Presbyters, but of Bishops : for 
Presbyters did not ordain a Bishop.'' They did not 
resort to weak criticism, but taking it for granted, that 
Timothy was an '^Episcopal Bishop,'' they were in no 
way backward, to interpret Paul's meaning, in opposi- 
tion to his language. 

Who arc the ^^ most learned men" opposed to the 
Apostolic succession, that have *^ conceded'' the word 
Presbytery, in 1 T//n., iv, 14, means *^ the clerical of- 
fice," you have not mentioned, unless you mean Cal- 
vin and Grotius. Dr. Ondcrdonk has set you this ex- 
ample, having quoted Grotius, as found in Cooke's 
Essay, and Grotius, in the extract, having quoted Cal- 
vin, or referred to him, along with *' Jerome, Ambrose 
and other ancients.":}: Had you, or they, but referred 
to Poole's Synopsis Criticorum, you would have found 
reasons, abundant and conclusive, to prove, that the 
word Presbytery, could not mean the Prcsbyterate, 
i. e. the office or dignity of a Presbyter — such as, that 
the idiom of the language will not admit it, and the 
word is never once used, in that sense, in the New 
Testament. 

*Sec his Epistles ad Eph. 2, 4, 20, ad Magn. 2, 13, ad Trail. 2, 7, 13, ad PljilaU, 4, 
5, 7, ad Smyrn, 8, 12. 
fChrysos. ad loc. 
t Works on Episcopacy, vol. II, p. 427. 



Ids 

I will not conjecture, through how many hands Cal- 
vin's concession may have passed. Inasmuch, how- 
ever, as you have charged Calvin, not only with mak- 
ing this concession, but actually, with a secret desire, 
for Episcopal ordination himself, having been by invin- 
cible necessity prevented from ** receiving it," the 
subject deserves a moments' attention. In the first 
place, Calvin has not conceded, that the word Presby- 
tery, as used in 1 77m., iv, 14, means the office to 
which Timothy was ordained. With his characteris- 
tic candor, he has admitted that it might be so under- 
stood, but expressly gives his own opinion in opposi- 
tion to it. His words are, *' They who think that 
Presbytery here is a collective name, put for the as- 
sembly of Presbyters, in my opinion rightly judge. 
Yet, all things considered, I confess, that a different 
sense does not badly suit — that it may be a name of 
oflice.''* I feel persuaded, that if either Dr. Cooke or 
Dr. Onderdonk, or yourself, had examined Calvin, the 
loose and incorrect reference of Grotius to this passage, 
would not have been quoted as proof, that Calvin con- 
ceded the word Presbyter, in this passage, to mean of- 
fice. The utmost, that even Grotius can be quoted as 
an authority to prove, on this point is, that, in the ar- 
gument he was pressing in favor of ordination under 
certain circumstances by a Presbyter, he would not 
avail himself of the advantage which this text might 
give him, because, he saw that Jerome, and Ambrose, 
and others interpreted the word, in that place, to mean 
office. Grotius, in the excess of his liberality, erred 

*Presbyterium, qui hie colleclivum nomen esse pntant, pro collegio Prcshjlcr- 
orum positutii, recte sentiunt iiieo judicio. Tanict«i omnibus expensis, diversura 
sensum non male quadrare fateor, ut sit nomen officii." — Calvin^ adloc. 



154 

in saying that Calvin so interpreted the word in this 
place. At least as it appears from Dr. Cooke's trans- 
lation. The matter is of little moment, any further 
than to furnish a specimen of the accuracy of the au- 
thorities on which you have probably relied. 

Still more unfortunate are vou, in vour notice of 
Calvin's reason for not receiving the Apostolic ministry. 
It is not the first time, however, that prelatical writers 
have found, they had better let Calvin alone. The in- 
sinuation you make, that he preferred Episcopal or- 
dination, meaning of course prc^///ca/, and would have 
received it, if he could have procured it, is, indeed, ob- 
scurely made. But I certainly cannot be mistaken in 
thinking you designed to make it. If this be not what 
you meant, I must be excused for misapprehending 
your language; for I confess myself unable to see what 
else can be your meaning. Perhaps I should not have 
been able thus to understand it. if I had not recently 
read the late controversy between Dr. ^Miller, of Prince- 
ton, New Jersey, and Bishop Ives of North Carolina, 
on this subject. This latter gentleman, has said that 
Calvin avowed a belief in the divine institution of 
Ej)lscopacy, and had requested to receive Episcopal 
ordination from the Bishops of England. I refer you 
to Dr. Millers review of, and reply to, Bishop Ives' 
attempt to prove his allegations, published in the Pres- 
byterian on the 5th and 12th of February last. 

It seems the Doctor was not allowed to vindicate Cal- 
vin, through the same channel, in which he had been as- 
persed ; and, therefore, instead of his letter being pub- 
lished in the *' Lincoln Republican,'' where Bishop Ives' 

*See Works on Episcopacy, vol. I, p. 3C3. 



155 

had been, it had, after several weeks delay, to be pub- 
lished in Philadelphia. Probably you never saw the 
reply. Had you seen it, you would not have renew- 
ed an allegation, which, in the most triumphant man- 
ner, has been refuted by Doctor Millei\ I have exa- 
mined the quotations, as made by both gentlemen, and 
find, that Bishop Ives omitted some very important 
qualifications, and makes use of Calvin's concession on 
an hypothesis which he, in common with all opposed 
to popery, deemed improbable, and impossible ever to 
be realized, as proof of a belief in the divine institution 
of Episcopacy ! Calvin had said, after ridiculing the 
claims of an uninterrupted succession^ ^*if the Papists 
would exhibit to us sz^c/i an hierarchy, as that the Bishops 
should be so distinguished as not to refuse to be subject 
to Christ: to rely on Him as their only Head, to cher- 
ish fraternal union among themselves, and to be bound 
together by no other tie than his truth, then I should 
\ confess there is no anathema of which they are not wor- 
thy, who should not regard suck an hierarchy with re- 
verence and obedience. But what likeness to such an 
one, is borne by that spurious hierarchy in which they 
boast]" Be it remembered that the word hierarchy 
does not always apply to prelatical Bishops. He after- 
wards condemns its arrogance, and tyranny, and shows 
its utter (lissimilarity to that which Christ and His Apos- 
tles sanctioned. 

Calvin's Bishops were parochial Bishops, or pastors 
of single churches, just such as we Presbyterians, in 
our form of government, denominate Bishops. The 
propriety of having a Moderator in the college of Pas- 
tors or Presbyters, he also maintained, just as we have 



156 

Moderators of Presbyteries. Because he deemed such 
Episcopacy a Divine institution, and consented, if Ronie 
would produce a specimen of it, to condemn those that 
would not yield reverence and obedience, to such an 
hierarchy, therefore, he believed in the divine right of 
prelacy, or of your ** Episcopal Bishops," is a non-sk- 
QuiTUR by no means becoming a mitred or any other 
head. Yet Bishop Ives gives the extract from Calvin, 
above quoted, in the following terms: **if they will 
give us such an hierarchy in which the Bishops have 
such a preeminence, as that they do not refuse to be 
subject to Christ, then I will confess that they are wor- 
thy of all anathemas, if any such shall be found, who 
will not reverence it, and submit themselves to it with 
the utmost obedience f 

The most superficial reader can discern the differ- 
ence between the Bishop's version of Calvin's hypothe- 
sis, and Calvin's own statement of it. I give you this 
as a specimen of the accuracy of Bishop Ives, if you 
have made the allegations on his authority, and deem 
it unnecessary to adduce further examples, of which 
Dr. Miller has furnished so many and so glaring, that, 
it is by no means strange,"^ the *' Lincoln Republican" 
declined to publish them.* 

* Since the above was sent to press, the second edition of your sermon has been 
publislied, in which I find a note confirming my conjectures, as to the source 
whence you derived your information, and as to the authority on which you have 
rehed, to prove Ihat Calvin was enamored with prelacy. You give Bishop Ives' 
references exactly — references, wliich I had not deemed it necessary to notice in de- 
tail, because your first edition contained no particular facts or arguments to sub- 
Blantiatc the charirc you have brought against Calvin, and because I had supposed 
it would suffice, to direct those, who felt interested in the subject, to the controver- 
sy between the I'"|)iscopal Bishop of Nortli Carolina, and the Presbyterian Doctor 
of Princeton, New Jersey. A njore particular notice is, however, now required in 
consequrijce of the note you have introduced on the 21st and 22d pages of your se- 
cond edition. 

You quote, ns from DurclVs view of the Foreign Reformed Churches, page 132, 
the words of Calvin, " in a letter to an old friend who had become a Bishop in the 
church of Homo," and in which, you say, he " exprc?sly recognizes Episcopacy as 
of divine inslilulion. His wcr.ls are, *■ Episcopatus ipse a Deo prof ectus est Episco- 



157 

When il is alledged, that Calvin desired, and asked 
for, **thc Apostohc ministry, '' i. e. as you understand it 
to mean. Episcopal ordination, ///s/oria// evidence might 
be reasonably expected, nay, justly demanded. Bishop 
Ives has not produced the shadow of historical evidence, 
except a statement found in Strype's memorials of 
Cranmer, p. 207, and in his *• life of Bishop Parker," 
pp. G9-70, that Bullingcr, and Calvin, and others, 
wrote to the young king Edward VI, offering to make 
him their defender, and to have such Bishops in their 
churches as there were in England. This might well 
have been dotic, where the reference was had, to the 
moral and religious character, of Edward, and of his 
excellent Bishops, and especially to their decidedly 
anti-prelatical. low church, or as we would say, Pres- 

pi Mmkus Dei atUhnritate conslilu:um rst ct legilus dffinitum.' * lie tcho is madt a 
Bishop procr.etLi from Uud kimsclf. Episcopacy teas estoblis'icd by the auf-.ority, and 
reg^uluted by the laics vf God.'"* 'J'ljfre is no'liirjcr, in lJ;is l;ii!gii;i£C, ih.it lavora 
prel.icy or DitKCs;;n Kpisrcipwry— the I'.piscopacy wliicli ymi advocnie. and claJm to 
cxerrise. .19 a sncrrssor .if il;c A|os:!cs. Voii mighl jusl ;:s wr)l chnrge Ihc VNhole 
Prestivicrian chn tli wiili a lelicf. llial prclatical Epi«cop;'cy is a di\ inc insliiu- 
lion, ai: i (juo i^ i,*- to ir:h ch;:]ilcr of our fonu of goveriiii'.er.t, in proof of if, as to 
quote <\i(.'i\ l.tri^ ; -c, in proof of Calvin's being a bcLcvcr in U;c divine right of 
"Kpiscopa Bishops." 

You li.ivc luil ijiven the name of Calvin's •' old friend," the " Bishop in (ho 
«hurch of llotpc," 10 whom the I'llcr was aldresserl. I suhniit !o your aiteniion, 
the renij.rks of Dr. Miller. *It is true," says the Dr., that liiii^uuge of ihis kind is 
found in ilint I^Uer, hut the most cursory pcruFal of tnc wlioUr Icticr, will banish, 
from any r.iraliil mind, ihe idea that Calvin is here spcakin;: of Dioce.-»an or prclali- 
cal Kpi'oopacy- Docs not every in.elligr.nt rca ier know, that th:a ercat reformer 
l^clicvrrj rtfd iinifornily lauijlit, that theofncc of Bisiiop (Ihal is, of the primitive, 
parochially .; s a divine institiilion. It is evidently of this /^arcc'i/ai jETpit- 

<opacy •! . when wrinn;rio his "old fri(!nd." in the la::;:t.a;:e a' ovequo- 

icil. Til I he iircr^ nn him, and ihe passages of scrip'.ure wliich h© 

ijuor^ thai il is f As/ Episcopacy uloiie which be 

mas!. ■■* 

V' r.ppenl (f:upplc.x exhort:»lio) to Charles the 

V, oil li.c I < c-s'iy t»r rcUi.-;.wa^ i..c chiirrh. You have omitted the very eame 
word^ in ><:-:. wliieh Hishop Ives did in his quolatioo, atid which Dr. ?f]ilier sup- 
r.\:r i ;: loiicj.l ut>o.e, iu his reply. I here give you the original. Talem nobis 

AM «t LXHIBEANT: IN QDa SIC EMINEANT KPISCOPI, UT tlfTlISTO NON SUB- 
SENT: UT AD ILLO, TANQUAM t'NiCO CAPITE, FKNOEANT, ET AD IPSUM RE^ 
,T.:,.^-i K : IN QIA SIC INTER SE rRATER?»AM SOCIETaTEM COLA.VT, UT NON ALIO .NO DO, 
4lUAJi>JUH VKRiTATE, SINT CoIXlOATl : TC.H VERO NUI.I.O NON ANaTIIEMATE DiaNOfl 
PATBOR, SI QUI Ekri«»T, QL'INON EaM REVFRENTER, SCMMaQTJE OBEDIENTIA, OB- 

eERVFST. If.F. VERO ;Me\dat mERATiriii;f: lakva, QUA superbiunt, quid OMNINO 
Habkt srr.T^' Joannis Cafrini, M. g-ni thcoloffici,TR\CTATVS theoloffici omnet 
in unuvi i inui,»(n, certis classibvs con^cali, p. 60, a, b. 

You next refer 10 the confession of faith, which Calvin "composed In lli« 

•Tt PiMbyurian of February li, 1842. 

14 



158 

byterian predilections. It proves just nothing as to 
their sense, and consequently as to Calvin's views, of 
the nnerits of prelatical Episcopacy. If it proves any 
thing, it is the very reverse of that for which Bishop 
Ives cited it. He has assumed, in his argument, what 
is notoriously incorrect — that Edward and his Bishop's 
views of Episcopacy were identical with his own high 
church notions, and you have followed after him. All 
the rest of his proo!' is attempts at argument, the utter 
weakness and Jallacy of which Dr. Miller has, with his 
characteristic urbanity, exposed. As to the Bishop's 
reference to Strypc, the Doctor says, '*Lct the letter 
be produced, and then wc will believe ; but not till 
then. The improbability of there ever having been a 
letter written, the Doctor has shown, and has adduced 

name of the. French churches." nnil Bay ihal its *' explicit l.-mifM :i:rr" remlcrs il 
** manifest,^' he (U'sircJ t'» rclawi the E;)iH*op.il rczi::ic:i. in hs h\s.<mi nf church 
govcriiiiiciit. I rciVr >oa nlso to the nrliolc.^, aiiM say, lh;ii, if, l>\ lij)i-ct»p:il rcpi- 
men, you inc.in prelacy, or ihe Episcop.'icy ynu n<lv(icilr, weiirc atiR>:ucon a poinl 
of fact. In ihal paper. Calvin uies the worcia Bishops, PjiR.nrs ««n I Miperintcn- 
dente, as tjynonynious. IWiEiiEA, say? he, tamri l->cr.Esi.^ auctoritatem, vel 

PASTORUM F.T SliPEaiNTKNDENTIUM, QLinilS Kccr.FSJ* RTOI NTJE PR(!VlN(;iA MaMDA- 
TA EST, SUDI.ATaM NOLUMUS. FaTKMUR ERor» KpiSCC-POS SI VE PAS rORKfl, RfcVKREK- 
TER AUDir.NDOa, QUATP.XUS PRO SL'CE rUNCTlOMS RvTIONi: VlT.nUM DkI VOCKST. *' Itl 

the mean lime, neverihcle.ss, \vi^ jirc un\v;;iiMK ihii the nuthoriiy of the church, or 
of Pastors, and of tlio-e supcrinieridinp. whose offuM*. ii is to uovrrn t!v church, 
•houlJ b'i t.ikeri away. We, therefore, vnufrs-, that Bis ^ps o- /',. 
reverently henrtl, in so far as as thev tr;;rh Ihe wor'l nl' O ►<! for 
functions. ( Confess! o Jiilei. nomi:ie Eccles:nrum Gall'raium. rii: 
ta, ut coram S. C. M ei il wflriss. Principihuj (icrmania, at qut urd hUus in comi- 
tiis Fraiic'ifurtcnsibi.s cdc^iinr, si per itintru.u dijfirullatrsez Gnl/in turn es ptrveniri 
TotuiBScf, Atvio M. D. LXII. contained in Jo. Calo. F.pist. el Rcspon., p. 'i-Vl, a.) 
Dr. Miller says "ihe friends (;f prri ivy arc hciriily welcoii;e, Im all the ir*.-timoiiy 
which can he drawn (ciuu Ihat confcjsinn. It is decisively nnti.prt'lalic:! in its cha- 
racter throughout, and the churches, which were «)rpinlzed on its ha.^i?, were as 
Ihorou^hly Preshvtenan asthcc'uircii rf bcotlaml ever w?i8 " Thni Calvin fhnuld 
have said, as you qiioe "our le^irned njcn have expreH-ly > icidrd ordination to 
Bishops," isceartiile^,) is as wi leas the poles from proof, ihal ttie Kpiscopucy you 
advocate, met ('alvin's approhaiion. 

Vour ne.vl reference, in pro(;f of Calvin'9 attaehrnent to Epj«copacy, coincldinc 
also will) that of Bishop Ives, is tfie f tct that " he censures the chrpv of Collm 
(Cologne?) for en.leavorinu to put their head Birdiop out of his plae-e, inasinncii ms 
he declared in favor of reformation." I know no more sait.diie replv to this th m 
Iheargumentum a.l hominetu of Dr. Mi'ler. ^?^ppose Bishop McCoskrv shoahl Le- 
conie a nios*. ze:di»us an I consilient Calvinist, ;:s to his thcolo^jo;.! crM'd, and stip. 
pose the Episcopal clergy of IMichifran shoidd conspire, on that accoun: alone, lo 
expel him froni his diocese. IMight I not remoiistra'e against the coi^siiir.-tcy with- 
out heinjj atiathed lo prel.icy. I certainly sliould fee; it, l:oh on jrrounds of per- 
■oral friendship and your known altaclimenl to Evangelic.il trut i, my privilege 
and duly to citerl what influence I might, to prevent the rejection of a sound oriho- 



159 

the testimony of Dr. Heylin, a bitter opponent of Cal- 
vin and Presbyterianism, to prove, that Calvin was 
consulted by Cranmer, who sought his counsel, and re- 
quested his aid, in conducting the English refornnation. 
He even sent the first draft of the English Liturgy, ear- 
ly in the reign of Edw^ard, to him, requesting his ad- 
vice and criticisms, which Calvin returned, saying he 
found in it some tolerabilcs inepiias, tolerable pool- 
ERiES, which he would wish mighl be corrected, and 
which was accordingly done.* 

The fact is — Calvin was devoted to the work of re- 
formation — anxious to see it advance, but he was not 
such a zealot or bigot, as to spurn every advance in it, 
because it did not come up fully to his standard. He 
gladly hailed every step taken in a departure from Po- 

*See Presbyterian of Fehrunry 12, 194"2. 

dox Bishop, for the introduction of an Oxford divine, or olhcr dargcrous errorift, 
without coinprotiiitiiiis: my Prcsbyicrian principle"?. 

Your next reference is also LJeniical with lli;it of Bishop Ives. You any that 
Calvin — " writing to Ithavius, a Polonian Bishoj), wnom he styles Illustrious and 
reverend Lord Bishop— so far from advisinc; him to lay aside his Episcopacy, cxhortt 
him to consider wh;u pl:ice he holdeth, and whathnrden is upon liim." Calvin doci 
not call I:havius *• Right Reverend" rcverendissimus ; nor lord, in the sense which 
your lanjruaiie implies, ;>s thou'^h it was identical with the title your Canada friendi, 
ificr the fashion of ilie Eiijflish hierarchy, give yourself The word " dominus,'* 
every school hoy knows is equivalent lo sir. It is the title of courtesy, which CaJ- 
vin uses, in addressing the humblest cur.ite. And as to the " dlustrious," it wa« 
that of merited excellence, and not of office. I perceive, from the use you have 
made of Calvin's courtesy, that, if I had happened to address you as the Right 
Reverknd S. a. IMcCoskry, 1). I).. Bishop, &.c.. — which I did not, rather by acci- 
dent and eniire i!,-n()r:incc of the importance, I uiiderstrnd both you and your 
friends attach to it— didiking :ind rejecting all honorary lit'es myself— than out of 
any unconrtcous design, I too, would have been convicted, by the same rule, you 
apply lo C.ilvin, of Kpiscotnil jire lilcctions. It behooves me, therefore, hereafter 
to be cJieful, how I atldressa Bishop, 

I have not, in any of my letters, for a moment hinted it, nor have! even thought 
" of advising (you) to lay jiside (your) Episcopacy," nor is it my wish you should, 
however anxious I am, that you should not inculcate the high-toned doctrines on 
the siibjccl of Apostolic succession, which I know are ns offensive to many excel- 
lent Episcopalians, bt)'.h clerical ;tnd lay, as?. hey are to other denominationa. It it 
passing strange, therefore, that Calvin should he convicted of Episcopal predilec- 
tions, because lie di<l not advise Bishop Iihavius to quithls see. 

But I must vindicate Calvin ; and while I do so, discharge a duty, which it would 
eeem, I myself owe to you, inasmuch as I have undertaken to write to a Bishop, 
or, us Calvin says, scribcre ausvs sum, but w^hich, while I wish you to understand 
it as I elni? my most friendly and fiffectionatf counsel, irivcn in Calvin's own wordi, 
ani for your personal benefit, I shall leave untranslated. Etsi autem pluusum tibi 
in mundi theatro conci Hat sI'Lesdibx hcbc dignitas, cavndum tamen diligentCTy n# 
te deynulceant FALLACts BLxNDiTiiE, guibus laqueis Satan multos hodie in exitialem 
labyri7ithum trakit. The O^ifordism in some Epi:;copal churches, renders it pfrtW 



160 

pery, and lo construe his kind feeling, and cooperation 
witli Cranmer, in the work of reforming the EngHsb 
church, into a proof that he believed in the divine in- 
stitution of Episcopacy as practiced in thai church, 
would be, just about, as logical, as to say — what is 
sometimes presumed by proselyting spirits in your 
church — that, because we Presbyterians rejoice in the 
religious advancement of your churches, the increase 
of Evannrelical men and principles among you, and care 
not to press our peculiarities, but are willing to aid, and 
to countenance, every effort made for improvement Id 
true religion among you, therefore we have become 
enamored with Episcopacy — gown and surplice, lawn 
sleeves and mitre, liturgy and Episcopal Bishops, and 
all, and would gladly receive the whole, if circun> 

ncnt lo ncl I. Quid crp<} tihi aj^mdum est 7 Fcrrent npud vo$ ditsidia, part una rts^ 
titui cupit inlctrrum Dei rultum ; altera impiat tuper.-f'liKUt^ pervieacite' drfendU, 
Te medium stare, quim Drug qua.u purred a niauu o. ' P •Irticininm cocmt^ 

turpe ar n'efus est. C'v/ita quern locum ocrvpea. et «, '• * / tmpntittnm. /#>• 



noBCfS milii pro lua huma- dale, si una in lerhos m > ^ '^"la ui profit, 

Tt quod sentto dicenduni i$l, ^ ubi ad ncleste tribwal teu-um Juerit. nun po$m «M 
proditionis crimen, nisi tc mature subJucas ab la catcrra, qua aperte ad opprimuuditm 
ChrUti numen runspirat : nnd winch, I vrrilv Ichfvc. in lln* vriiilri ry iiiid cflTr^t, 
not only nithr Oxiurdiliro'oi'y. Imt of yo;ir docirino nf Ap«)«:olic j»u»rr«'sion. Aaw 
vera si tibi molrftum eM minui. ut crescat in te Ck'istns, in mentcm rental Motes rx- 
emplum, qui sub umhris ofscuris, Cl'rish tnmen opprvbrinm delirits Qlgyptiorum et> 
opibus pritfcrrc non dubitatit. Jo. C'alc. Kp e' Hetp. p. |:1I, a. b. 

Yiiur lu'xl rcrTrn.-r, in (Nxniiioti wiili Uisliop Ivrs, n lo C.ilviii'^ Irltrr (o Ih© 
king of •'oliui:!. 'VUc n\>cc\ of iliat IritiT. n« any tine ulio rcjul-* il. i to 

nronio'.c pi-'iy, .mil Iriir «|oc:rirw, in ilic cliiiri-li of Polan.l. Ilr dors li« 

king lo tics. roy llir llirrarrliy, wliicli waB lirutly rsin'ili-tir I iIi'Ti ip 

Cbat of Koiiif, ;.9 ;ilio'_'e:l»Pr cxccralilc, nnd ururs Iti:* itisi|< . h 

in innUcrs wliiih lio .1 *eMic I lirHl niiil iiiosi cssomial. II ■ ly 

of Uic aiicicfil I'liuri'li. wiili ihal of Uoiiic, Iml disiiiiclly r< ; , ri« 

macica, as lo ihc invrn'.ion of ilic (-liiin'li, iiol as a Divine iii-iitiMiuwi. 'iJic ancicnl 
church, of which h<' sp(»k«', was noi Ihc Api»siohc cbu-ch ; nor is llicrr, in Iho 
whole of iliai leiicr. one solilary wnnl. whirh woiiM iniply— wh it you. and Bishop 
Ives, liavo said— ;hja Calvin approved of all the degrees of ihr U rrarchy, even of 
thai ancient church. He says hat ntuliliion and pri lo fahrirate I the Uoaian Hie- 
rarchy. That of llic aMci<*jU church, prior lo the a[iosta'o Uouian Ihrrarchy, hp 
admits, was insiituic I, hy ihe .-hurt-h. tor ilie purjjose of ronsohdiiing I'lc union of 
ber Bii^hop:^. Then ho supposes an or^ranizniion (quemadmodum si kodie) for the 
church of Poland, wiuoh nu^hi re>cnil»lc it, (a dchca'c way lo him to ihc kinp, lh» 
uature and exieut of iho rcfomjaiion to Uc souehi hy him in hi& llierarohy,) and in 
delailinf? the feaniros of this sjipposod orLaiiiz iiion for I'ol.m I, nccor<|ing to the 
model of the ancicnl cluircli. he makes the fcjpiscopacy that miirhi he introduced 
into Poland, a«:ref, in .dl essential respeitls, with a l'res'»y«eri;.n organization, whero 
the Arch-')ishop should he the pcrmancni mo lerator of the synod, )«n I the provin- 
cial or city Bisiiops, the moderators of their presliylerict — 'arh primus in' er part» 
and chosen, forthijl purpose, from among tJicjusrlves. lli:i virws, ai^o, of ordina- 
tion, and of the succcsdion, expressed in the same letter, arc in pcrl.ci keeping. 



161 

stances beyond control, did not prevent 11 Yet such, 
I am constrained to believe is the only pretext for 
clainriing Calvin for the Episcopate, at least until you 
show where ''on the plea of necessity" it has ever 
been ^' said (by Calvin,) that he could not receive the 
Apostolic ministry from circumstances beyond his con- 
trol/' 

Having disposed of these allegations. I return, for a 
moment, to the subject of Presbyterian ordination. 
There is no proof, whatever, that the laying on of 
hands in ordination, possessed the sacramental charac- 
ter which you attribute to it. There is not a solitary 
instance of any one of the Apostles having been so or- 
dained, unless you admit, that Paul was ordained at 
Antioch, Jlcts^ xiii, 1-3, and that was by Presbyters, 
and not by Episcopal Bishops or Apostles. Even the 
Oxford Tractators'^ admit, that the Apostles, at first, 
did not ordain in the manner afterwards adopted, by 
the laying on of hands. Yet, ordination, by the laying 
on of the Bishop's hands, we are told, is essential to 
the validity of the ministry, to the efficacy of ordinan- 
*vo]. I, p. a3. 

Th.'it you and Bishop Ives, should have read the original of Calvin'a letter, »o as to 
make it proof of his approb:ition rf all Ihe dej^rces of the Hierarchy of ihc ancient 
church, f )unded, ns you teach, in the Apostolic supremacy of the Bishop, and the 
three orders of the ministry, is so passing slrango, thai I shall not allow myself to 
attempt any solution of the phenomenon. See the Original letter in Joh. Calvin 
ep. pp. 85-8. 

Your Inst reference is olso identical with that of Bishop Ives, the reply to which, 
by Dr. Miller, as afiven u'love. I iiad embodied in ihis letter, liefore I had seen your 
•econd e:lilion. I only add, that the witnesses who testify to this fact, related by 
Strype, viz: the Popish Bishops Bonner and Gardiner, wer?, according to your 
own showing, guilty of "a forgery," ar d therefore, their word is of no authority, 
until Calvin's letters themselves, be produced. They are not to be found among all 
his printed epis'.lcs. Not a hint of it is dropped in his letters to Cranmer, or in 
Cranmer*s to him. Arfh-hii-liop Al)!)ot, does not say, even in the testimony you 
i quote, that he saw Calvin's letters,- only, that helearned from Arch-bishop Parker^ 
I papers, llial Calvin desire! the Episcopacy. So far from being "prevented by ui>- 
I toward ciri lanstances, from retaining the Episcopal regimen" in the church of Ge- 
neva, he oven states, expressly, that the Presbyterian system of government, whieb 
he introduced therr, was his deliberate choice, and that the church had been reform- 
ed agreeably to God's word, the only ruU. (Set his epUtle ad quendmn Cnratum,) 

14* 



162 

ces, and to the existence and continuance of the 
church !^' 

Whether you really believe, that ordination, by the 
laying on of the Bishop's hands, communicates, sacra- 
mentally, and really, the Holy Ghost, by a supernatu- 
ral gift, I will not undertake to say ; but the whole 
tenor, and spirit of your discourse, are calculated to 
make that impression. It is important, and essential, 
to your doctrine of Apostolic succession, that it should 
be so. Unless it is thus a channel of special grace, it 
is good for nothing. It behooves you then, to show, 
when, and how, and by what authority, the practice of 
ordaining by laying on of hands, which prevailed not 
at first with the Apostles, originated ;- and in what part 
of the word of God, you will find proof of ordination 
by the laying on of a Bishop's hand, thus imparting the 
Holy Ghost. 

The first instance of prelatical ordination, recorded 
in the word of God, has yet to be produced. The 
Apostles, as we have seen, called themselves Presby- 
ters. They also used the terms Presbyters and 
Bishops, as synonymous, that of Presbyters, being, in 
fact, more honorable than Bishops. Presbyters united 
in ordaining. They had, and exercised the power to 
do so. Whether by the formal imposition of hands, 
or not, is not essential: but the distinct, full, and for- 
mal recognition of the party ordained, as being called 
and chosen of God, as being endowed with the requi- 
site qualifications, as worthy the confidence of the 
churches, is indispensable. 

If, then, you cannot prove separate orders and func- 

"•SeeDr. How's vind. of ilic Prot. Ep. Cb., p. 123. 



163 

tions from the use of titles, which are indifferently, re- 
ciprocally, and synonymously used ; — if the imposition 
of hands is not a sacrament, authoritatively required, 
and instituted to impart the Holy Ghost ; — if the fact of 
the Saviour's divine call, and of the possession of the 
requisite qualifications, as imparted, by His Spirit and 
Providence, is the essential element, in the ministerial 
consecration — if the rite of ordination, by the imposition 
of hands, is but the recognition and certification of the 
fact of such consecration ; — if this recognition, and 
certification have been made by the conjoint act of 
Presbyters, through the imposition of their hands ; — 
and if no solitary instance, is recorded in the scriptures, 
of prelatical ordination by a Bishop, of an order superior 
to Presbyters — with whom, I ask, lies the strength of 
the argument? And who, were they so disposed, might 
make a better pretence to the spirit of exclusiveness, 
and deny the validity of your ordinations, than we 
Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists and Metho- 
dists, whom you cast out from the pale of the visible 
church ] 

Some of the most learned men of the Episcopal 
church, have not hesitated to place Episcopal ordina- 
tion, precisely on the basis which we have done. 
I Speaking of the ordination of Timothy, Arch-bishop 
' Usher said ^'St. Paul was the principal, and the Pres- 
byters were his assistants, according to the constitu- 
i tion and custom of our church, in ordination. The 
I Bishop is not to do it alone, but with the assistance of at 
least three or four ministers, which was after the pat- 
\ tern of primitive times."* 

( 'Certain Discourses of the late Arch-bisfeop of Armagh, London, 1659, p. 183. 



104 

Jeremy Taylor says, the Presbytery that ordained 
Timothy was a company of Bishops, (just what wo 
Presbyterians affirm,) and yet he adds, that all antiqui- 
ty declare that it was a company of Presi)yters — pro- 
cisely as we believe and teach.* 

Mr. Smyth, t in addition to the above, quotes Bishop 
Croft, as saying in his ** True state of the Primitivo 
church," *'and I desire you to observe, that of those 
two names, Presbyter and Bishop, if there be any dig- 
nity, and eminency, expressed in one more than the oth- 
er, sui c it is in the name of Presbyter, not Bishop ; be- 
cause the Apostles themselves, and the chief of Apos- 
tles, (as some would have it who stand highest on their 
pantablcs,) are in scripture styled Presbyters or El- 
ders, as the word in our English translation signifies, 
but never Bishops, as I remember.*' He also quotes 
Powell,! as saying, that **the word Bishop, indeed is 
never used in the New Testament to signify the office i 
of oxjersiglU oner minislcrSy but only over ihe flock of i 
Christ.*' 

To these might be added many other testimonies. 
Till you have proved that Bishops and Presbyters in 
Apostolic times, were diffiirent orders — till you can 
give us the word of God for it — which Dr. Onderdonk 
admitted to be the proper range for this argument — 
we shall not be intimidated or rendered at all uneasy, 
even though high churchmen, do scowl upon our Pres- 
byterian ordination, refuse to introduce us into their 
chancel, and seat us without the pale of the church. 

♦See Epis. Asserted, p. 191. In Powell, p. 21. 
fSec Apo?. Sue, p. 159. 
tSee Apos. Sue, p. 78. 



LETTER XI. 

THE ANGEL OP THE CHURCH— IGNATIUS— POLYCARP. 

f Rev. and dear sir: 

The argument, taken from the direction of the Sa- 
viour's epistles to the seven churches of Asia, is equally 
inconclusive with all that have preceded it. You ob- 
serve, '* it will be no difficult matter to prove that these 
(viz: the Angels of the church,) were the Jiposiles or 
Bishops of those churches." I must confess, that I was 
no little surprised by such an assertion, when I remem- 
bered that the very learned Stillingflcet, of Episcopal 
authority, calls the argument from these symbolical 
titles, a ** miserable'' one. *Mf," says he, **many 
things, in the epistles, be dwect to the Angels, but yet 
so as to concern Iha whole hocly^ then of necessity, the 
Angel musl be taken, as a representaLwe of the wholo 
body; then, why may not the word Angel be taken by 
way of REPRESENTATION of the body itself; either, of 
the whole church, or which is far more probable, of tho 
Consessus, or order of Presbyters in the church? We 
see what miserable, unaccountable arguments these are, 
which are brought for any kind of government, from 
metaphorical or limbiguous expressions or names pro- 
miscuously used.''=^ 
^ That Stillingflcet is correct, I need but refer you to 

*Mason*s works, v. HI, p. 142. 



164 

Rev.y xiv, 6, where the same symbol is used, and the 
Prophet says, he ** saw another Angel fly, in the midst 
of heaven, having the everlasting gospel, to preach, un- 
to all them that dwell on the earlh, and to evf.ry na« 
TioN and KINDRED and tongle and people.'' Surely, 
one Bishop was never sent or expected to do all this. 
The one Angel in the synibol, therefore, stands as a 
representative of a class, of a great company of preach* 
ers. Should you say, that, in the epistles, the word 
THOU, the singular pronoun is used, showing that but 
one person was addressed, I refer you to Rod,, ii, 10, 
where it is used convertibly with the plural you, and 
evidently to refer collectively to the church. ** The 
devil shall cast some of vou into prison, that ve may 
be tried; anJ ye shall have tribulation for ten days; bo 
THOU faithful unto death," &c. 

But even should I admit, that the Angel meant ono 
individual, you cannot infer, much less ought you to 
assume, that he was an *' Episcopal Bishop/' That 
must be proved. This you have attempted, by alledg- 
ing, that there inust have been many Pastors, in each 
of the cities named; and, inasmuch as the singular num- 
ber is used, it mnal mean some one superior to all, and 
of course, lhc3 governor and inspector of all. I need 
only, in disproof of such an inference, to quote to you, 
historical proof of what was actually the state of things 
in the churches. 

Paul's sending for the Presbyters at EfJiesus, whom 
you say, were Presbyter-bishops, or Pastors, does not 
imply that, in Ephesus, there were many separate and 
distinct churches. It is no uncommon thing for a 
church to have more than one Pastor. In large cities, 



195 

Collegiate charges are not uncommon — several chur- 
ches forming but one in fact, and having three, four or 
more Pastors, according to their numbers. This is 
one way of showing that your inference is a non-sequi- 

TUR. 

We Presbyterians have another way. Believing, 
ns we think, on scriptural grounds, in the associated 
** helps," or '-governments,'' we regard as church offi- 
cers, ** the Elders that rule well,'' who, Paul says, are 
deserving of esteem, as well as *' those especially which 
labor in word and doctrine." It is in view of this bench 
of Presbyters, that we make this distinction. ThePas- 
I tor is the presiding Presbyter — the Moderator of the 
j session, and the Bishop of the church. The Elders 
i composing liis session, are Presbyters, and overseers, 
or Bishops too, co- operating with him, in the watch, 
care, and discipline of the church. I intend not, how- 
i :ever, as I have already intimated, to insist upon the 
peculiariiics of our Presbyterian form of government, 
which, on suitable occasions, I am prepared to maintain 
( -and defend, as sanctioned by the scriptures; but merely 
to show you, that there is a very easy way to under- 
stand, how the symbol of the Angel might have denoted 
one person — the parochial Bishop or Pastor, and yet 
there be no inferior grades in the ministry, nor such a 
thing as an ^'Episcopal Bishop." 

Were all your assumptions, and those commonly 
I made by prelatical writers, .^ranted, you might, indeed, 
construct an argument in favor of the three grades or 
I orders in the ministry of the gospel, and of the supre- 
macy of the Bishops; but this has never been done. If 
it were possible, these things ought to have been long 



IGG 

before this, proved, and ihe claims of Episcopacy estab* 
lished beyond all dispute. When Dr. Ondcrdonk ad- 
mitted, that ^*the claim of Episcopacy lo be of divine 
institution, (meaning prelaticnl Episcopacy,) and there* 
fore obligatory on the church, rests fundamentally on 
the one question — has it the authority of scripture? if 
it has not, it is not necessarily binding'' — it was lioped 
that there might be some speedy adjustment of the con* 
troversy. But when Mr. Barnes put the argument of 
Dr. O. into his crucible, and tried it, by scrijUural tests, 
and found it to be alloy — not genuine gold — it was soon 
discovered that *' the essential point of the Episcopal 
controversy," was not so ** entirely simple" as the zeal- 
ous Bishop had stated it — and he and others since, have 
renewed tlie nj)peal to the Fathers. *■' 

♦It was indceil. a mnsicrly wlrokc of policy— proof ilmt ihf Bishop w»s n rood 
fcnor;il, of jidiniralilr tad, and knew how lo inkc advant.i^c of ih^ in.-ijrnutiimiiy of 
his foe, jujil wlulc soiimliiijt a rclrojil, lo w nrd oJF ihc. sUunr .itid dia«T.4rc of a dC' 
fcol, for liiin l«» liavi' sfi/.-d, ris hir did, Mr. IJ;iriics' ••sprjMli I eiiloijv '" of ifir Ivpi«»- 
Cop:il cliiirfh, ;is you i-:il! it, in your sciuiiid filjlioii, jind \vi li i!ic toiin I of ' • 
pel, niid tlu» sliom of viiiory. bark out «»f ilie conlrov(v j\ . l>r. OiuJ' 1 

narrowrd Ihc conlrovrr-y down to ihr !>'oriplur.i! r.r^;;;;-'!!-! in f;i\'f)r < i 

Kpiscop:ic> . :uid voliir.'.rf red ilie rshiltiiion of i! M f . nj, 

Ihc nrjjumciu, iiiid f^r()\<'d lis f:'Ii»'iCK .ii<l iiicoi had 

made nssunipiiMii'4, ju^t us >oii hivr tlonc, whicii ' i»rn- 

ved, licforc ilir ;irL'ii!iirnl lari h.ivc .Miy force. I ii<!<r 'li'ij;,^ 

tow;ir<Is the I'pi^cop.d church mid its uicinlicrs, Mr. I" I'lplyl 

lo Hishop Ordir loiik lo Ir inlerprcted as proof of li. . ' , I dc- -i 

noniinadon. lie, therefore, niai:nanim«)U5ly lie«:owc.l jiraiso, whc.c |irair-e wat 
due, nnd l.tuded uv\ny no!)le aud clever \ in g nn'ii iimoMK ihc early nfoniirrs in tha 
church of Iwinl.iiid— nore of them hicl) church luen— ;jave ih;il church rredii, for 
Ihc good which (J. id had accouiplishod l>y it? insriuuem.d.ty, and cxprr<»cd hit 
earnei'i de?irc lo sec the machinery of ICpi»<cop<'il or^uniza ion, so well tidapicd a* 
it is for erticicnt and sncressful uciion in the service of .lesus Christ, hroujrhl out 
into the field of leuevol mU eni»'rprise, in coininou Willi o.her cliurcheo, lo prepare 
tlie way for the coining of ihe liord. In so aayinjr, he did no! ctall the or?:if»f7:iiion 
of your cliurch a!;ove iliai o( \i\A own — nor did he c»cn adiidi is \ . be- 

•lowing his praise simply on iis pceulinrilies and the L'ood that h '^ved 

in it — nor (livl he say one word from whirl) you will find any ^cmt ni ih» 

Presbyterian church wMhIwd I hi;* cordi.-il amen. 

Althoiijih you may prohaldy jndcrc mo devoid of Ihis spirii, Ixctusc I rliscriminnlo 
between ihe f;uiil;s rml excellencies of your church — the ch:ira''ter und piety of ma- 
ny of its tninis'iers ami mcmliers, and the lof.y andarro'iant claims assrred hy som* 
of iis Bisshops lur iis Apt>stolic./l su|>remacy— yei wotdd I loo give my hearty as. 
sent lo ;ill that Mr. I>..riies has said, wiihoul ever imagininc that I should there- 
fore l.c consiriied inio the apologist, advocate und euloiiisi of ihc episcopal church. 
Dr. Onderdonk, and your imiiaiinn of him in ihe preface of the second edition of 
your sermon, are cidcuhitcd lo repress, and to pr^-venl the indulgence of all such 
generous feelmws. I will not say what they deserve to he c^ille.l, but lira I will 
say, that ilicy who can l;c c; jolcd hy such argumenis, in favor of Kfiiscopacy. aro 
Just the nien'that never thinic for ihcmselves, but arc ready, lo foHow or lo hall, to 



•t < 



167 

You are fully aware of how little worth and autho- 
rity are the Fathers, on [joints of faith, and how utterly 
absurd it is, to make ihcm umpires, in matters of doc- 
trine or discipline, whose opinions are so discordant and 
, often contradictory, whatever may be their value as 
T historians. In this latter respect, the early Fathers 
I will not be found to establish the claims of prclatical 
Episcopacy. Hear what Doctor Whately, the very 
) learned Arch- bishop of Dublin, has said, upon the 
subject of the church's organization, at this day, af- 
, ter all the former controversies. ** A Church and a 
DiocESK,*' he says, ^^ seem to have been, for a conside- 
ble time, co-exlensive and idenlicaL And each church 
I and Diocese, (and frequently each superintendent,) 
, though connected with the rest by ties of Faith and 
Hope and Charity, seems to have been, (as has already 
( been observed,) perfectly independent, as far as regards 
any power of control/'* This is, substianally, the same 
with the account of Lord King, who has shown, that 
as there was but one Bishop to a church, so there was 
but one chicrch to a Bishop — ihat that church was not 
a collection or association of churches, as being in one 
city, stale or country, such as you call the church of 
your Diocese — that the Bishop's cure was not called a 
Diocese, but was, usually, a parish no larger than oiHr 
parishes, or congregations, or separate churches. t He 
has taken a survey of the churches of Smyrna, Ephe- 

* Whntcly on tlie Kinffdom of Christ. 

t Inquiry in.o ihc prirniiive Con. and Dis., &!!., of the cliurch, chop. II, 
I applaud or to condemn, at the bidding of their masters. Dr. Onderdonk may bo 
lauded by liinis:e]f ond others, for declining; :iU controversy wiih a gentleman wb9 
entertains such opinion?! of his church; >ei tliose who c.;nseeand appreciate the 
force of argunient. will say, gentlemen, thi« will not do. Reply to iMr. Bt'rne^' ar- 
gument. Make no false issue. The Cfmtroversy was not about 3Ir. Barnes' or any 
other person's opinion of the Epis;:opa] church ; but about the claims of prclatical 
Episcopacy to be liccounted a divine instiiuiion. Till this is done, however we 
may uduiire your tact; we raust think but little of your logic, 

15 



168 

sus, Magnesia, Philadelphia and Trallium, as they were, 
in the days of Ignatius, and has shown that tiic Bishop, 
in those days, was but a parochial Bishop, sucli as we 
Presbyterians call a Bishop — the Pastor of a particular 
church, having associated with hinn his Presbytery or 
Eldership, and Deacons, all which you will find in a* 
Presbyterian church. 

J. C. I. GiESELER — an historian who quotes his re- 
ferences in proof of his affirmations — speaking of the 
early churches, says, that they ** every where, formed 
themselves on the model of the mother church at Jeru* 
salem. At the head of each were the Elders, (Presby- 
ters and Bisiiops,) all officially o/" kqual rank, thoughi 
in several instances, a peculiar authority seems to have 
been conceded to some one individual from personal 
considerations." The numerous references he gives 
to prove both the identity of Presbyters and Bishops, 
and how long that identity was retained, quoting tho 
scriptures, and Jerome, and referring to Augustine, 
Chrysostom, Theodorct, Isidorus Ilispal, Bernaldus, 
&c., &c.. are certainly enough to demand some mo- 
desty and forbearance in asscirting the high claims of 
prelacy.* 

MosuEiM says, 'Mhc rulers of the church were de- 
nominated, sometimes. Presbyters or Elders — a desig- 
nation borrowed from the Jews, and indicative, rather 
of the wisdom, than the age, of the persons; and so.mc- 
times, also, Bishops ; for it is manifest that both terms 
are promiscuously used, in the New Testament, of one 
and the same class of persons, ^cfs, xx, 17, 2S; PAz7., 
i, 1; 7\/., i, 5, 7; 1 Tim., iii, 1. Three or four Pres- 

* Glcscler'3 Ecclesiastical History, v. I, pp. 50, 57. 



169 

byters, men of gravity and holiness, placed over thoso 
little societies, (the churches severally.) could easily 
proceed with harmony, and needed no head or presi- 
dent. But when the churches became larger, and the 
number of Presbyters and Deacons, as well as the 
amount of duties to be performed, was increased, it 
became necessary, that the council of Presbyters and 
Deacons should have Vi president, a man of distinguish- 
ed gravity and prudence, who should distribute among 
his colleagues, their several tasks, and be, as it w-ere, 
the central point of the whole society. He w^as, at 
first, denominated theJlngel, (Apocal. Il^and III,) but af- 
terward the Bishop — a title of Grecian derivation, and 
indicative of his principal business. But whoever sup- 
poses that the Bishops of this first and golden age of 
the church, corresponried with the Bishops of the fol- 
lowing centuries, must blend and confound characters 
that are very diflTerent. For, in this century, (i. c, 
the first,) and the next, a Bishop had charge of a siU' 
gle church, which might ordinarily be contained in a 
private house; nor was he its lordy but was in reality 
its minister or servant."* 

Bishop Croft, in his Naked Truth, thus expresses 
himself. *' Having thus stated and united the iivo pre- 
tended and distinct orders of Episcopacy and Presby- 
tery, I now proceed to the third pretended spiritual 

' orde7% that of Deaconship. Whether this of Deacon- 
ship be properly to be called an order or an office, I will 

( not dispute; but certainly no spiritual order, for their 
office was to serve tables, as the scripture phrases it, 
which in plain English, is nothing else but overseers of 

* Mosheim's Eccleeiastical History, v. I, pp. 69, 70. 



170 

the poor, to distribute justly and discreetly the alms 
of the faithful ; which the Apostles would not Iroublo 
themselves withal, lest it should hinder them in tho 
ministralion of the word and prayer. But, as most 
matters of this world, in process of time, deflect mucb 
from the original constitution, so it fell out in this busi- 
ness ; for the Bishops who PRr:TcxDi:D to bc succes* 
80RS TO THE ArosTLES, by little and little, took to 
themselves tlie dispensation of alms, first by way of in* 
spection over the Deacons, but at length the total man* 
agcment, and the Deacons, who were mere lay olhcers^. 
by degrees crept into the church ministration, and bc-^ 
came a reputed spiritual order and a necessary degreo 
and step to the priesthood, of which I can find nothing 
in scripture, and the original institution, not a word rela* 
ting to any thing but the ordering of alms for ihe poor*^ 
And the first I find of their ofliciating in spiritual matt 
ters, is in Justin Martyr, who lived in the second ccn* 
tury/'* 

^* The very pattern of primilive Episcopacy'' — says 
that learned, excellent, and eloquent advocate and 
friend of the English church, and its zealous dcfendef 
against the popery and Gnosticism of the Oxford Trac* 
tators, Mr. Isaac Taylor — ** might bc pointed to, io 
some of our rural districts, where a mother Omgrega^ 
iional church has, under the laborious care of its Pas^ 
tor, surrounded itself with dependent chapels, (or as 
we would, in this country, say, (nissionary stations or 
school houses,) scattered over a district of seven or tei> 
miles in diameter/^f 

Other authorities might bc quoted, but these are 

*8coU'3 col. of Tr., v. 7, pp. 307, 309. 
t Spiritual despotiaiu,. p. 2U0. 



171 

enough, to show, how utterly fallacious is the argu- 
ment you advance, from the alledged Episcopal supe- 
riority of a class of officers in the church called Angels, 
and how you have crowded in your explanations, which 
are but begging the very question in dispute, so as to 
make the language — on assumptions you have not pro- 
ved and cannot prove — appear to support your dop- 
trin6. Thus, you say, after quoting part of the epistle 
to the church of Ephesus, in John, ** this epistle was 
written in the year 96, and of course there must have 
been many Pastors (why ? how of course?) or Elders 
over the churches, (the epislle is not directed to *' the 
churches," but l/ie church at Ephesus,) at that time, for 
there were several (several what ? Pastors or churches? 
both, no doubt, you mean,) when St. Paul sent for them 
I to meet him at Miletus, and also when Timothy wa5 
' placed over them in the year G5, (which has never been 
I proved.) And we cannot but conclude, that many 
Elders or Deacons the inferior ministers, as I have al- 
read shown, (certainly not by your argument,) were 
i added to the number by Timothy himself, as St. Paul 
had fully set before him, the qualifications such min- 
j inters have. (How this last consideration helps the ar- 
gument, or goes to settle the matter as to the number 
of churches and Pastors, is, to me, a perfect mystery. 
It is; however, homogeneous with what follows. 1 But 
;jhe epistle was directed to the Angel of the churcb, 
liruOf the churchy not chun hes.) at Ephesus. He was 
commended for what was good, and reproved for what 
was evil in the churches, (you have it singular or plural, 
jaltermitely, as it suits you.) If, however, he was not the 
^9hief officer, why shouldhe be thusaddre^ed,? j[^5^l^exl 
15* 



172 

ycm have proved, that to have been the chief officer, viz: 
the President, Moderator, Pastor, he must have been 
the Episcopal Bishop of Ephcsus, there will be somo 
point in the question, and it may deserve an answer, 
but not before.) Wliy should the Elders and Pcacons, 
the Paslors of llic churc/ics, be overlooked? (VV^hen 
you have proved there were churches there, and three 
orders in the ministry, we shall think it still moro 
strange than you do now, that they should have been 
omitted.) Tlie only reason that can he given is, that 
the Angi:l was the Bishop of the church, and he wag 
held accountable for their conduct, and was cither com- 
mended or reproved, as it was proper or improper.** 
You have changed ihe style of your speech again. To 
this a Presbyterian would subscribe, understanding iho 
Bishop to be a parochial Bishop or Pastor, and the 
church a single parish, not a collection of parishes. I 
have been surprised at the manner in which you have 
here expressed yourself — at one rnomenl, in the singu- 
lar number, speaking as a good Presbyterian, and the 
next, in the plural, as the Episcopal Bi>hop. There is 
no coherence or consistency in the argument. 

Still more, am I surprised, at the manner in which 
you have reasoned concerning the commendation be- 
stowed upon the Angel. *' And you will observe,'' you 
remark, *' that the A::gel is particularly commended, 
for having tried them which say they arc Jlpostlcs, and 
are not, and hath found them liars. But how could this 
be done, if he were not an Apostle himself?" Very 
easily. There was not a member of the church who 
might not have been com[)etent to do so. The trial was 
not a judicial one. ' This you assume without any shovr 



173 

of reason. The Saviour had laid down the duties and 
qualifications of an Apostle, very dislincily and defi- 
nitely. Every man, in the church of Ephcsus, could> 
therefore, judge, whether those who said they were 
Apostles, were such in reality ; just as we Presbyte- 
rians, every one of us, feel perfectly able to try all 
who make Hke pretences, at the present day, and do 
Qs promptly reject all their claims as did the Angcl. It 
seems, that there were very early pretenders to tho 
Apostolic ofTice. Can you assign the reason why no 
notice is taken of there being pretenders to any of your 
alledged inferior grades of the ministry? These pre- 

^ tenders aimed high, which is by iio means uncommon 

( with such persons. 

You are at a loss to know, why any one should ever 
have been suspected of imposition, if the Apostles 

i were not to have successors. I say, the very fact, 
that they were not to have successors, excited suspi- 
cions, whenever any one laid claim to the office ; and 

i that this was the reason, why, pretenders to this office 

I and not to the others, were so quickly suspected. **0r 
why,'' you say, *' should he try and examine the pre- 
tensions of impostors, if he had been persuaded, that 

i the Apostolic office was to be limited to those origin- 
ally appointed, and were not to have successors? It is, 
ot once a distinct admission, that at that time, in the 

I year 98, there were true Apostles, who had succeeded 
to the office originally given by the Saviour, to the ele- 
ven, when he breathed on them and said, receive yet ho 
Holy Ghost, as My Father hath sent Me. even so send 
I you. If not, why try any one who pretended that 
*he had received such an office." For this very obvi- 



174 

ous reason, that none but the twelve were, or could bo 
genuine Aposlles, and, therefore, suspicions, at once, 
were cxcilcd, in reference to any and every one else. 
The style of speech, adopted in the episllc, is very 
strange and unaccountable on any other supposition. 

If the Angel was Bisliop, in your sense of the term, 
with exclusive power to ordain, all that was necessary, 
on supposition of the continuance of the Apostolic office, 
was not to ordain any impostors to that office. Instead 
ot trying, ilic proper course would have been simply to 
ask, whether the man had been Episcopally ordained ^ 
and if not, there was the end of the matter. But if you 
admit that he had been — which you must, before you 
could subject him to the judicial trial, that you evidently 
understand the Angel Bishop did — ilien. what becomes 
of that infallible Headship, virtually claimed by you to 
have been transferred to the Bishop? How came false 
Aposlles to htivc been ordained at all? The truth is, 
that the very fact of the Aposlles being called, and 
commissioned of Jesus Christ, directly offered the 
temptation to ambitious and aspiring men, to pretend 
to their lofty powers and oflice. The f;ict of such a 
pretense, was enough, in any case, to make the church, 
whether in its members, or officers, demand the dis- 
tinctive marks, and subject such claims to the proper 
test, just as the Corinthians did PauTs, whose were 
isuspccted by some not to be genuine. 

I might here retort, were I so disposed, your odious 
charge of being gross impostors made against us, and 
frame an hypothetical argument, just as you did, to 
prove it. If the Apostolic office was designed of God 
to be of temporary conliauance, for extraordinary and 



175 

specific purposes, and none could lay clainn to it, but 
men who had been directly called and commissioned 
by Christ, empowered to work miracles, and miracu- 
lously, visibly, to impart the gifts of the Spirit by the 
laying on of their liands, then all, who have not been 
so called, commissioned, and empowered, to work 
miracles themselves, and to impart tlje miraculous gifts 
of the Spirit to others, but who yet claim to be Apos- 
ties, are gross impostors. So far as argument is con- 
cerned, I have just as full a right, and firm a ground, 
to retort your charge against ''Episcopal Bishops," 
who claim to be Aposilcs, as you had to make it against 
us, who have not been Episcopally ordained. But I 
would not think of doing so. For I perceive, that 
through a fond desire, to assert, and to maintain, your 
lofty power, you have been beguiled to change tho 
very design and nature of the Apostolic office ; and 
thus, claiming powers and authority, distinguishable, 
in every essential respect, from those of the Apostles, 
you cannot, and ought not, to be charged with inten- 
tional deception. You have only erred, as we chari- 
tably think, in your estimate of the Apostolic office ; 
and we are happy to regard, and to confide in you a? 
christian n)en and brothers. It would have been just 
as easy for you, to have charitably judged us to be in 
error, according to your views, and to have w^ithheld 
a charge you can never establish, so calculated to 
wound feelings, to destroy the reputation and useful- 

I ness of your brethren, and to build up your own on 
their ruins. 

Your attempt, to corroborate your argument taken 

i from the title of Angel, by your remarks relative to 



176 

the symbolical title of stars given to the ministry, was, 
80 fully, anil perfectly shown, by Dr. Mason, in big 
Review of Essays on Episcopacy, to be inconclusive, 
that I wonder the attempt has ever been renewed, 
*^ Stars,'' says he, *M*n the symbolical language, signify, 
throughout the whole Bible, '' ministers of religion.'' 
But we contend that they signify ministers of religion 
with regard to Xhe'w geiirral office, and not with regard 
to their relative dignity. Jesus Christ is a *'star/' the 
twelve Apostles are ** stars," and so are the apostate 
clergy, figured by the *Mhird part of the stars" which 
the dragon cast down with his tail to the earth. Who 
does not see, that the only point, in which the symbol 
agrees to the subject in all these cases, is the common 
character of the religious ministry, distinction of rank 
being utterly disregarded. On this principle, tha 
" stars" must mean the ministers of the churches, with* 
out discrimination ; everyone being a ''star." It is, 
therefore, impossible, to discover under this emblem, 
any order of ministers to the exclusion of any other. 

*'In this general reasoning, the Hierarchy might, per- 
haps, concur without much prejudice to the cause. 
She might insist, that a symbol, coaimon, in its own 
nature, to all ministers of religion, is restricted, by the 
conditions of the text, to a single individual, who, frona 
the functions ascribed to him, must be a superior offi- 
cer, and not one of a college, Concessus, or Presbyte* 
ry, having equal authority. 

*• There is internal evidence, in the passage itself, 
that this construction, though ingenious and acute, can- 
not be true. For, as the "candlesticks" are emblema- 
tical of the churches, and as there is but one star to 



177 

give light to each candlestick, it would follow, that 
there was but a single minister to each of the churches; 
and thus the Episcopalian would overthrow himself: 
for without inferior, there can be no superior, clergy. 
Surely, he will not say, that the Bishop alone did all 
the preaching, and all the instruction, and set a// the 
example, i. e. emitted all the light on account of which 
ministers are called ** stars." The other clergy had 
some share in ihcse functions. They too, '* preached 
the word ;'* they too, ** taught from town to town;" 
they too, *'lct their light shine before others." Now, 
one "star" being appropriated to one *' church," as 
one candle is to cne ** candlestick," it follows, from 
the nature of the comparison, that as one candle, is the 
full comphincnt of light for one candlestick, so one star, 
is the full complement of light for one c^hurch. But 
the light, which shone in these churc:hcs, did not ema- 
nate from any individual ; (your assumption being that 
there w^ere churches at Ephesus, gives point to the 
Doctor's remark,) it emanated from a number of indi- 
viduals ; from the collective body of the ministers of 
religion. Therefore, the *' star" which expresses the 
whole light in one of these churches, is a symbol, not 
of a single minister, but of her ministry c'Aleclively. It 
would be a darksome Diocese, indeed, which should 
enjoy no rays of light but those which proceed from the 
Bishop."* 

**The *^ani]:els," and ''stars," in the context before 
'us, do NOT signify single persons, but a number of 
men ; that is ail emblems of a collective ministry, and 
not of a Diocesan bishop. 

♦Dr. Mason's works, vol. Ill, pp. 145, 40-53. 



178 

**Thus cndclh the second lesson, which is concerning 
(the) *• absolute dcmonslration," that ihe angels of iho 
seven cluirchcs of Asia were Episcopal prelates." 

When Dr. Mason's argumenis, exhibited at large in 
his Review of Essays on Episcopacy, shall have been 
nnet and answered, you may talk about evidence sufii- 
cicnt lo prove ihal the Angels were ** Episcopal Bi- 
fihops," but certainly not before. In the mean time, 
I pursue the course of your argument. 

You adduce the teslimony of Ignatius, to prove, that 
the Bishops, of the first century, were of unorder supe- 
rior to Presbyters — ** Episcopal Bishops." I am truly 
surprised, and somewhat grieved, that you should have 
80 incautiously expressed yourself, and affirmed, for un» 
deniable fact, what, if you had ever been at the pains to 
read more than the one side of this controversy, yon 
must have known, has not only been denied, but with 
strong circumstanlial evidence to support if, that tho 
epistles ascribed to Ignatius are not genuine. You say 
of ihcm, *' it is evidence, which cannot be denied, forwo 
rely uprni it, with other testimony, to prove the canon 
of scripture. If it be rejected, vc may ol once give up 
the word of God, and throw ourselves into the hands 
of infidels." Far, vciy far, are we from admitting tho 
conclusiveness, or from seeing any thing but the incon- 
sidcrateness, of such a remark. The authenticity, and 
genuineness, of the canon of scripture, are not depen- 
dent on the testimony or writing of Ignatius. The in- 
ternal evidence, even of the seven epistles — which aro 
all, bearing his name, that arc claimed to be genuine— 
is very strong, which refers them to a much later date, 
than the first ccutury. 



181 

There certainly are some things in them, which de* 
,servedly impair cur confidence in the opinion of Ignatius 
or leather in the genuineness of the epistles attributed to 
^ him, and which have been lately published in a beautiful 
^edition, by the Oxford Tractators. They are very dif- 
. ferent from the other productions, we have of the first 
„ century. Dr. Cooke is forced, upon the authority of 
Dr. Lardner, to admit, that the larger epistles are in- 
terpolations of the smaller; and that the smaller, those 
f,only now claimed to be genuine, bear evident proofs 
.of interpolation, adapted to the times of the Arian 
^controversy, which rose two centuries after the pe- 
riod, at which Ignatius is said to have written them ; 
but he thinks, that while on this subject, they may be 
..suspected, they are, nevertheless, entitled to our confi- 
[^dence, on the subject of church ordcr.^ They cer- 
Ijtainly hold a style of language, on this subject, to- 
y tally unlike any thing in the word of God, amounting 
.^! to something very near impiety, and directly at war, 
r. both with the spirit and letter of Christ's instructions and 
I commands to his Apostles. Dr. Cooke has referred to 
T| some passages in these epistles, which he has italicised, 
5! and which, had we nothing else, are so unlike the ex- 
5; hortations of Christ, and of the Apostles, but so like 
J the age when it is confessed the anti-Arian interpola- 
j lions were made, as to destroy their authority. Thus 
I the author says, that Onesimus, the Bishop of the Ephe- 
5 sians, was to be ** respected as the Lord Himself,''! 
^ In the epistle to the Smyrneans, the church at Tralles 
\ were advised *^ to respect the Bishop as Jesus Christ." 

I* See works on Episcopacy, v. II, p. 252. 
tEp, adEph., VI. 

16 



182 

*' Whatsoever the Bishop shall approve ofy that I8 also 
PLEASING TO GoD.'^* Romc coulcl Qslv, and has claim* 
cd, no higher infalHbihty. *' It is a good ihing to have 
a regard, both lo God and lo ihe Bishop. He thai 
honors thk Bishop .shall be honohed of God. Blt 

HE THAT does ANY THING WITHOUT HISJ KNOWLEDGEf 

MINISTERS UNTO THE DEVIL." Thc confcssional, there-- 
fore, is indispensable lo salvation. '^Hearken unto 

THE Bl.-^HOP, THAT Goi) MAY ALSO HEARKEN UNTO VOU. 

My so»l be security for them (hat submit to their 
Bishop^^^X &c. This is equal to the blind faith of the 
Papist, who ventures wholly on the Priest. It is ob- 
vious, that one prominent object, in these epistles, is to 
exalt the Bishop, lo aggrandize ecclesiastical authority, 
and if the pointed anti-Arian expressions, arc justly 
deemed proofs of interpolations made in thc third or 
fourth century, so also may those about the power of 
the Bishop, so zealously and pointedly pressed. 

I shall have a fitter occasion to notice your quota- 
lions from these epistles, in my next letter. In the 
meanlime, enough has been said to show, how very 
questionable is thc genuineness of these epistles, and 
how very rash it is, to make our belief, in the sacred 
canon, lo depend on such evidence. Therc is, over and 
above what I have referred lo, unquestionable proof of 
forgery in them, for the epistle lo the church at Phila- 
delphia, represents him as calling God lo witness ^^that 
ihe spirit spake saying these things: Do nothing without 
your Bishopy^^ &c. — on which Dr. Wilson, has very 
justly remarked: " the position is unsound, the inspira- 

♦Ep.to Sinyrn., VIII. 

t Lathra, privately, secretly. 

^Ep. lo Poly carp, VI. 



18S 

lion at best a delusion, and the oalh a falsehood, of all 
which, the pious Ignatius was probably clear/'^ No 
such testimony from the Spirit is recorded in the sacred 
scriptures. Both the internal and external evidence of 
the genuineness of these epistles, fails, and the proofs 
of interpolation are so glaring, that they cannot be quo- 
ted, as historical testimony of the first century. All 
that is said about the piety of Ignatius, of the time 
when he lived, and so justly, of his conversing with the 
Apostles, and of his martyrdom so glorious, is to no 
purpose, as long as his own genuine productions have 
not come down to us, and it is notorious, that his name 
was used to dignify a forgery of much later dale. 
I ^ Beside, even granting the genuineness of the seven 
epistles in every word, there is not one syllable in them 
which proves, the existence of Diocesan or any other 
Episcopacy than parochial — or the Bishop, Presbytery 
, and Deacons of Ignatius, to be difTerent from the Pas- 
tor, Elders or Deacons of a single churcli worshipping 
.together in one place. 

Ignatius is careful to associate a Presbytery or Eld- 

I ership with the Bishop, and also Deacons. I have exa- 

I mined carefully all his seven epistles, in which, the Eld- 

' ers or Deacons are spoken of by him as preachers of 

\ the gospel, or reference is made to their duties as such. 

I The people are required to obey them, and they are 

called or compared to the Sanhedrim, the court of 

judges, and to a concessus of x\postles, associated with 

the Bishop. But while the people are exhorted to 

obey, and be subject also to the Bishop, he is distinctly 

recognized as the one of cAie/* authority and influence, 

* Wilson on the primitive government of the christian churches, p. 54. 



184 

to whom they should attend. In his letter to the church 
at Smyrna, not the churches, but a single assembly, he 
expresses himself, in terms not to be mistaken, and 
which cannot, on any legitimate principles of gram- 
matical interpretation, be applied to a Bishop of a Dio- 
cese, or to any other than the parochial Bishop or Pas- 
tor of a parish. '* Shun divisions, as the beginning of 
evils. Let all follow the Bishop as Jesus Christ the 
Father; and the Eldership or Presbytery as the Apos- 
tles. But revere the Deacons as ihe commandment of 
God. Let no one without ihc Bishop do any of these 
things which belong to the church. Let that Eucharist be 
accounted valid, which is (oflcrcd or administered) by 
the Bishop, or by whom he may appoint. Where the 
Bishop may appear, there lot the multitude be (the as- 
sembly — the crowd of worshippers,) just as where 
Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic church. It is not 
lawful, without the Bisliop, cither to baptize or to cele- 
brate the feast, but w hatevcr he may approve, that also 
may be pleasing to God, that what is done may be sure 
and firm.'** 

This cannot consistently be referred to a Diocese, 
but refcMs appropriately to a parish. For the Bishop 
is the only person competent to baptize, or to adminis- 
ter the Lord's supper. The Eucharistic bread and 
wine must be oflered by him or some one else, to whom 
he commits it — and where he is, there the multitude is 
to assemble. All this is said by Ignatius, in the section 
or paragraph of his letter, in which he speaks of the 
evils of division. I quote from the late Oxford edition 
of the Apostolic Fathers, Clement, Ignatius, &c. The 

♦Ep. adSmyr., VHI. 



185 

translation given in the appendix of Dr. Cooke's work, 
volume II, of Tracts of Episcopacy, from which I per- 
ceive you quote, has attached these words: ** avoid all 
divisions as the beginning of evils," to the preceding 
[)[iragraph, but which, introducing the paragraph as I 
have given it, form the key to its meaning, and evi- 
dently direct us to the assembly of the communicants, 
where the Bishop of the parish, who alone is compe- 
tent, administers the ordinances. 

You will say, that the words of Ignatius are to be 
differently understood, and explain them according to 
your system of church order and government, as ap- 
plying to Diocesan Episcopacy; but however plausible 
your explanation might be, admitting the existence, of 
the three orders, and of a Diocese, which we do not, 
there is proof, from the early Fathers of later date than 
that assigned to Ignatius' epistles, and even from Igna- 
tius himself, that ours was the received interpretation 
at that day. Thus he says, ^* there is but one alta)\ as 
there is but one Bishop,''* which is not the case where 
you have several churches — each church having its al- 
tar, where the Priest officiates. In like manner, he 
says, '^ therefore, just as the Lord did nothing without 
the Father, being united to Him, neither by himself 
nor by His Apostles, so neither do ye any thing without 
the Bishop and the Elders, (or Presbyters;) neither at- 
tempt any thing that may appear suitable to reason in 
your own private judgment, but being come together in- 
to THE SAME PLACE, let there be one prayer, one sup- 
plication, one mind, one hope in love and in the joy that 
is undefiled. Jesus Christ is one than whom nothing 

*Ep. adPhilad. 

16=^ 



186 

is better. Do ye, therefore^ con^ together as to one 
temple, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ,"* &c. 
There can be no mistake about the meaning here. All 
are to come together into ike same place. This is not 
Diocesan, and cannot be — but parochial Episcopacy, 
or Presbyterianism — and where there is ooe Bishop, 
Eldership and Deacon, all assembling together, around 
the same table, to receive the bread and wine from 
one administrator, cither from his hands directly, or 
through those to whom he commits them, to be con- 
veyed to the communicants. 

The passage from the epistle to tlve Magnesians, il- 
lustrates, and confirms our explanation of that from the 
epistle to the Smyrneans. This is further corrobora- 
ted, by the testimony of Juslin Martyr. **The Bishop's 
whole Diocese met together on Sunday, when the Bi- 
shop gave them the Eucharist; and if any were absent, 
he sent it to theni by the Deacons.''! Tcrtullian also 
says^ '' lliat christians received the sacrament of iho 
Lord's supper, from the hands of the Bishop alone.^J 

These (juotations may sullice to show, how litlle aid 
you obtain from Ignatius' epistles interpolated, and 
ante-dated by two centuries, and spurious as they may 
be, in support of the high claims of Episcopacy, as- 
serted by you. Such is ** the proof which you say 
*Ms full and ought to be conclusive," in favor of the 
Apostolic superiority of ** Episcopal Bishops!" Par- 
don me, my dear sir, if I say it ought to be no sucli 
thing. It wants the essentials of proof ; and if admit- 
ted at all, works far more against than for your positions. 

* Ad Ma?.. VII. See also Kp. ad E >h., XIII. 

♦ Con. arid Dis. of nrim. ch., p. 19. 
t Idem. 



187 

A word or two only, now, is necessary, in reply to 
what you say about Polycarp. Admilting all you af- 
firm, that he was the Bishop of Smyrna, at the lime, 
and the person to whom the epistle by St. John was 
written — that he too was called the Angel of the 
church — the very Bishop whom Ignatius exhorted El- 
ders and Presbyters, Deacons and Laity, to obey — and 
that he was ordained as Irenasus, Polycarp's disciple, 
says he was, by the Apostles — it proves, neither more 
nor less, than that he was parochial Bishop of the 
church of Smyrna ; and that is all it proves. 

You have rightly said^ that the opinions of these 
early fathers are no authority, but that they arc credi- 
ble witnesses of facts. We reject not their testimo- 
ny as to facts, though wc do not magnify it as you do, 
or rely so much upon it, to prove the Bible. But we 
do reject your construction of their testimony, and 
your attempt to pass it off for the fads. Should I 
even reject Ignatius' testimony as to facts, and be- 
lieve that his letters are not genuine, I should be very 
far from being the least affected, by your great alarm, 
about the proof that the Bible was given us of God. 
You say, ^' if their testimony to facts, as I have al ready 
observed, is rejected^ it is impossible^ to prove that the 
book which we call the Bible and which we prize as 
the great chart, given to us of God to guide us in our voy- 
age through life is true." I presume you mean to say, 
that it is, by the writings, not of Ignatius, but of all the 
Fathers in succession, as they have quoted the sacred 
scriptures, we identify the book, they call the Bible 
with what God gave — the original deed; and that, if we 
reject their testimony as to facts, in one case, we must 



188 

in all, and therefore cannot prove the chain of title, the 
authenticity of the original instrument. Yet you have 
so staled it, as to make every thing turn on giving 
credit to Ignatius' epistles. We can reject them, and 
more too, if proved to be spurious, and yet have abun- 
dant proof of the authenticity of the Bible. 

In the heat of your argument, and anxiety to silence 
us by the word of Ignatius, you have been betrayed, 
to say the least, into a very incorrect statement of the 
issue between us and the infidel. 



LETTER XIL 
the testimony of the fathers. 

Rev. and dear sir: 

It is rather an ungracious task, I confess, to point 
out to a friend, the looseness with wliich he may ex- 
press himself. It ought not, in ordinary parlance, lo 
be done; for the petty critic, who is always fiiiding 
fault with expressions, when the meaning is obvious, 
renders himself odious to all. But, in the statement 
and prosecution of an argument, where it is essential. 
that words be well defined, and that their meaning 
should not fluctuate, it is very different. In that cnse 
it becomes an important duty to notice such vagueness, 
in order to expose the fallacy of the argument, or the 
speciousness of the sophistry. If w^ords have been 
used, which admit of different senses, and require a dif- 
ferent meaning, in the conclusion, from what they do 
in the premises, truth requires the exposure. Nothing 
but this sort of necessity, imposed on me by the struc- 
ture of your argument, induces me to notice how you 
actually contradict yourself, and nullify your whole ar- 
gument. 

''The name Apostle," you say, '-has been confined 
to the first rulers in the church, that is the Apostolic 



190 

age. After this age, as we learn from Theodoret, one 
of the Fathers, the term Bishop was taken from the se- 
cond order of ministers, and appropriated to the first. 
•6f//, therefore, that is said of Bishops in the ^New Testa- 
?ne?ity is to be regarded as belonging to the middle 
grade, who are now designated by the term Elder or 
Presbyter. The highest order in the scriptures, is 
called by the word Apostle, but is now^ and has 
been, since the Apostolic age, designated by the term 
'• Bishop.'* 

In so saying, you abandon the proof from Ignatius, 
whom you quote to establish the point ** that the min- 
istry consisted of three grades — Bishops, Presbyters or 
Elders, and Dciicons.'' Ignatius, I admit, uses these 
three exprossioi.s, the Bishops, Eldership or Presbyte- 
ry, and Deacons, very often. You have snid that this 
proof, of the superior and inferior grades in the minis- 
try, **ougiit to be conclusive." You, certainly, there- 
fore, will not object to my holding you to your own 
acknowledged obligations, though I have protested 
against them, atid shown, that thoy have no binding 
authority on us who suspect the genuineness of Igna- 
tius epistles, or at least, account many parts of them to 
be interpolations made in subsecjuent centuries. 

Theodoret, to whom you refer, was of the fifth cen- 
tury, having died A. D. 457, aged 71 years. It is 
strange that you should have come down to so late a 
period for the proof, that the word Bishop belonging to 
the second grade, and i. r.. Presbytery or Eldership, 
should have hern appropriated to the first, and been 
made to supersede that of yXpostles. But Ignatius be- 
longed to the Apostolic age; for you have told us, 



191 

*^ thai Ignatius was made Bishop of Antioch, by St. 
Peter, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of 
Evodius/'* and that too thirty-six years before the death 
of the Apostle John, having *• suffered martyrdonn about 
the tenth year of Trajan, which was only four years 
after the death of John the Apostle — at which time Ig- 
natius lead been forty years the Bishop of ^intioch,'^'^ 
Who then was the Bishop of the church of Ephesus, 
of Smyrna, and of others, of whom Ignatius speaks ? 
Theodoret, you affirm, says, that in the Apostolic age, 
the Presbyters or Elders, 2. e., the second grade, w^ere 
called Bishops, but the highest grade, Apostles, and 
you quote his testimony, as conckisive authority. Of 
course then, you arc shut up to one or other of these two 
, conclusions. Either, that the epistles of Ignatius w^ere 
not of the Apostolic age, but were the production of 
the third century after it, just as we think their internal 
levidence proves; or, that the Bishop of the Apostolic 
age, z. e., the Bishop referred to by Ignatius, was mere- 
ly a parochial Biphop, primus inter pares — the first of 
the Eldership or Presbytery, to which grade or class 
of officers he belonged — tlie Moderator or President as 
he is called. If Ignatius ever meant to convey the idea 
of Apostle's successoi's, it was the Elders or Presby- 
ters he accounted such.'-^ One or other you must ad- 
mit, for Ignatius does not once use the word Apostle as 
the title to designate the person he calls Bishop. If 
you admit the first, viz: the spuriousness of the epistles 
^attributed to Ignatius, then, even the shadow of your 
proof of the three orders of the ministry, in the Apos- 
tolic age, vanishes; for Ignatius is your main reliance, 

' *SeeEp.adMagn., VI. Ad Trail., II. 



192 

and the only one, you have referred to, among the unin- 
spired writers of the Apostolic age. If you prefer the 
latter horn of this dilemma, then you concede Ignatius 
to us, and his testimony goes for parity and Presbyle- 
rianism, not for [prelacy. Adhering, therefore, to your 
avowed obligations to receive the proof which "ought 
to be conclusive,'' I should anticipate your return to 
Presbyterianism, did I not know, that there is some- 
thing very dazzling and captivating, something exceed- 
ingly fascinating and enchanting, in an '* Episcopal 
throne.'' 

Yet have there been some, who were not so dazzled 
by the splendors of a Bisiioj)hric, but that they could 
see, and acknowledge, the truth in this matter. Such 
was Bishop Croft, whose testimony I submit, before I 
pass to the cxauMnalion of that of Theodore!, your 
next witness. In his Naked Truth, this Bishop says: 
** I hope my readers will see what weak proofs are 
brought for this distinction and superiority of order — 
no scripture, no primitive general council, no general 
consent of primitive doctors and fathers; no, not even 
primitive fathers of note speaking particularly, and 
home to our purpose; only a touch of Epiphanius, and 
St. Austin upon Alius, the Arian heretic, but not de- 
clared, no, not by them, an heretic in this particular of 
Episcopacy.''* 

* The State of tlu' Primiwvr ('!r,:r.-li, pp. I'l, ^'l, *i^, &.c. 



193 

And now, as to the testimony of Theodoret. Al- 
though you have not quoted or referred, specifically, to 
the passage, I shall. His words are, as taken from his 
commenlary on the first epistle to Timothy: ** but what 
I have already said — they called the same (persons,) 
formerly, Presbyters and Bishops — those, at this day 
called Bishops, they called Apostles. But, in process of 
time, they relinquished the name of Apostleship (or 
Apostolic office,) to those who were in reality Apostles; 
but they gave the appellation of the Episcopate, to 
those formerly called Apostles. 

Claudius Salmasius, in his Dissertation against D. 
Petavius Loyolita, written more than two hundred years 
ago, examined, very critically, and at great length, 
this testimony of Theodoret. I give you his language. 
*^He," viz: Theoderet, '' acknowledges, what we have 
before said, two kinds of Apostles — for those whom he 
calls ALETHOS APOSTOLous, inreallty Apostles, he distin- 
guishes, by this name, from them who were not in re- 
ality Apostles. Such were they, whose labors the 
Apostles used to constitute churches, viz: Titus, Timo- 
thy, Epaphroditus, Linus, Mark, and if there were any 
others of this sort, whom also the ancient Church called 
.apostles. These were the sent of the Apostles, that is, 
Apostles. But the Apostles in reality were the sent of 
Christ himself. Theodoret, therefore, says, that for- 
merly, in the times of the Apostles, the same (persons) 
were called Bishops and Presbyters — tous autous 
EKALOUN poTE Presbyterous kai Episcopous. For, 
says he, there could not be a plurality of Bishops in 
one church. But, it appears, that these very same 
(persons) were bishops of the highest grade, who also 
17 



194 

ordained and fed the flock of Christ, and were called 
Pastors, But they were not the less, also, called Pres- 
byters, because the first and second grades were, at thai 
tinne, one and the same, and were united in one person. 
They who were above the same Bishops and Presby- 
ters, were called Apostles of cither kind, that is, as 
well, the Apostles in reality immediately appointed by 
Christ, as those, who, being wont to be sent by the 
Apostles to constitute churches, were designated by 
this name, ministers of the Apostles, helps, fellow sol- 
diers. These held the same place in the church, above 
Presbyters and Bishops, as long as they constituted one 
grade, which, afterwards, the Bishops obtained, when 
the distinction of grades was introduced, and the Bi- 
shops were placed above Presbyters. Toi's autous 

FKALOT-N POTT, Pnr.SnTrTFROI'S KAI EpISCOPOUS, ApOS- 

TOLOus ONOMADSON. They who now are called Bi- 
shops answer to those then named Apostles; that is, 
they obtain the same authority above Presbyters 
which the Apostles — by whom the churches were or- 
ganized, themselves also sent of the Apostles to or- 
ganize them — formerly obtained above Presbyters cal" 
led also Bishops, seeing that it was the custom for 
those too to be called Apostles. But in process of time, 
they relinquished the name of Apostleship, to those 
who were truly called Apostles, (Apostles in reality, 
the Apostles of Christ:) but they imposed the appella- 
tion of the Episcopate on those who formerly were called 
Apostles, [L e.. Apostles of the Apostles.)' After the 
distinction of grades was made, and the Eldership or 
Presbytery was divided from the Apostleship, which 
formerly were blended, the name of Apostleship was 



196 

properly given, to those who were truly Apostles, viz: 
the veritable Apostles of the greater nations. Ten 

DE EPISKOPES PROSEGORIAN TOIS PALAI KALOUMENOIS 

APOSTOLois EPETETiiESAN — that is, ihey imposed the 
appellation of Episcopate on those who w^ere formerly 
called Apostles, viz: on the helps and ministers, or 
those sent of the Apostles who used their labor and min- 
istry to constitute Bishops in every city. For when, 
in churches to be instituted, they would exercise the 
Apostolic function, and would act, in place of the Apos- 
tles, they were accounted instead of Apostles, and were 
so called, and had almost equal authority and power 
over churches and Bishops of the churches, which the 
Apostles themselves had, over those whom they had 
constituted thew Apostles. But w hen the Bishops be- 
came greater than Presbyters, and were placed in a 
higher grade, the following age called even the Bishops 
themselves no longer Apostles, the name of Apostles 
being left to those who had in reality exercised the 
Apostolic functions."* 

This explanation of the meaning of Thcodoret, in the 
passage to which you refer, Salmasius substantiates 
by a variety of considerations, expending the most with- 
ering sarcasm on I^oyolita, who had declared, that the 
language of Theudorct, in the passage, was involved, 
and his meaning inexplicable. 

You seem to be aware, after all, that you can make 
nothing of the name, and therefore, in common with 
Bishops Onderdonk, Hopkins, and others, you fall back 
upon the office of the Bishops, which you think you 
have proved to be identical with that of the Apostles ; 

* Walonis' Mcssalini Disserlatio, pp. 50-5*2. 



196 ^1 

but which we have shown was essentially different. 
You have allowed yourself to indulge, in a sort of So- 
cratic reasoning, which, I must confess frankly, has ex-ii 
cited strong suspicions in my mind, as to the extentfl 
and accuracy with which you have examined the his- 
tory of the church. You ask, on the supposition ofj 
ministerial parity, and no Apostolic succession, *' is iti 
not strange that it should have been considered so un-^ 
fitted for the church of Christ, as to be banished from 
it before the close of the first century ? There is not a 
trace of it to be found." I suppose you mean ministe- 
rial parity, and if so, I am perfectly at issue with you 
on a point of fact. I have examined all your argu- 
ments thus far advanced, and have not found any thing 
like proof 'Mliat the Apostolic office was transferred 
from one to another, and that it was supreme. Thai 
there were inferior grades in the ministry — Presbyters | 
and Deacons.'^ You have not produced either from 
the scriptures, or from Ignatius, any thing like proof. 
For the meaning you attribute to the expressions 
you have quoted, you have not even attempted to 
prove to be the only true and proper one, but have as- 
sumed, that they meant, just what you say they did, 
and what suited your argument. I have shown that 
they did not, and could not, mean, what you say they 
did. How perfectly out of place, therefore, is your 
question, which may have its effect upon those who 
never reason, but on none other — "how could such an 
office, as was held, by the Apostles, and afterwards by 
the Bishops their successors, ever arise in the church, 
without it had been fully sanctioned by the great Head 
of the church ? It is impossible." When, you an- 



197 

swer HOW, such an office could arise in the church as 
has been claimed to have been derived from the Apos- 
tles, by the Popes, their successors, without its having 
been sanctioned fully by God, it will be time enough 
yeq, unnecessary to reply to your question. So far 
from the thing being impossible, it has actually been 
done, and you are bound to show, how such offices as 
Arch-bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, Cardinals and 
Popes, could have arisen, in the church, without being 
fully sanctioned by God; and until you do so, your de- 
claration, '^ it is impossible," will only excite a smile, 
unless, indeed, you turn papist outright, and go the 
whole at once — carrying your interrogatory through 
Bishops, and the whole troop of high dignitaries up to 
his holiness ^' the Lord God the Pope," Vicar General 
of Jesus Christ on Earth and Minister Plenipotentiary 
of Heaven. But even this — however more consistent 
it would make your interrogatory — would not screen 
you, from the charge of ignorance of the history of 
the Church, to which you have exposed yourself 
by the following remarks : '• They are too jealous of 
their rights ever to have yielded to such an assump- 
tion of power without a struggle. And if so, where 
is the evidence of any opposition on their part] The 
word of God is silent — all history is silent ! And 
who could have been the usurper] We might as well 
expect that history would be silent in reference to our 
own civil revolution, as to expect silence in so remark- 
able and complete an ecclesiastical revolution, as must 
have taken place, when Bishops were made the su- 
preme rulers of the church. It cannot be." Are you 
so ignorant of history, as not to know, that the cases 
17^ 



198 

are most numerous, where men have yielded their 
rights without a struggle when the encroachments 
have been gradually and imperceptibly made? — how 
common is it to give new names to things, and having 
familiarized the ears of men to them, gradually slide 
off from their original meaning and make names be- 
come things] — how the most oppressive despotism and 
tyranny have grown up, and been submitted to, and 
all for the defence of freedom as it was thought ] — how 
changes liave been silently wrought, under false preten- 
ces, and the power obtained, which afterwards could 
not be resisted? Are you ignorant of the history of 
both Greece and Rome? — of the regular growth of 
almost all kinds of oppression that has been in the 
world, and which have advanced, more by art and de- 
ception, than by arms and bloodshed ; and of the influ- 
ence which synods, councils and conventions have had 
in the church? I am utterly amazed, at the manner 
in which you have expressed yourself, and feel com- 
pelled to quote to you, for your information on the 
subject of the origin and growth of the Hierarchy, the 
account which Jerome, one of your own authorities, has 
given of these things. 

** A Presbyter, therefore, is the same as a Bishop ; 
and before there were, bij the instigation of the devil, 
parties in religion, and it was said by different people, 
I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Ceplias, the 
churches were governed by the joint counsel of the 
Presbyters. But afterwards, when every one accoun- 
ted those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and 
nat to Christ, it was decreed, throughout the whola 
world, that one, chosen from among the Presbyters, 



199 

should be put over the rest, and that the whole care of 
the church, should be commitled to him, and ihe seeds 
of schism be taken away. 

** Should any one think, that this is ir.y private opin- 
ion, and not the doctrines of the scriptures. let them 
read the words of the Apostle, in his epistle to the Phi- 
lippians : *'Paul and Timotheus the servants of Jesus 
Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at 
Philippi, wnth the Bishops, and Deacons,*' &c. Philippi 
is a single city of Macedonia ; and certainly, in one 
city, there could not be several Bishops^ as they are 
xow STYLED ; but as they, at that time, called the very 
same persons Bishops, whom they called Presbyters, 
the Apostle has spoken without distinction of Bishops 
as Presbyters. 

'* Should this matter yet appear doubtful to any one, 
unless it be proved by an additional testimony ; it is 
written in the acts of the Apostles, that when Paul had 
come to Miletum, he sent to Ephesus, and called the 
Presbyters of that church, and among other things, said 
to them, * take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock 
in which the Holy Spirit hath made you Bishops/ 
Take particular notice, that calling the Presbyters of 
the single city of Ephesus, he afterw^ards names the 
same persons. Bishops,*' 

Other quotations are made from the epistle to the 
Hebrews, and from Peter, and he then states: '*• our in- 
tention, in making these remarks, is to show, that^ 
among the ancients, Preshyiers and Bishops were the 
very same. But that by little and little, that the 
plants of dissentions might be plucked up, the w^hole 
concern was devolved upon an individual. As the 



200 

Presbyters, therefore, know that they are subjected, 
BY THE CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, to him 
who is set over them, so let the Bishop know, that they 
are greater than Presbyters more by custom, than by I 

ANY REAL APPOINTMEX T." * 

The same things are stated by Jerome, with great j 
point, in his letter to Evagrius. Here, then, is a full, I 
distinct, and formal answer given to your questions, f 
and an account of the origin, and growth of Episcopa- } 
cy, showing directly, how very limited must have been | 
your reading, or how exceedingly treacherous must i 
be your memory, to admit of your having so boldly af- i 
firmed, that *'all history is silent,'' on the subject 
of the rise and progress of ihc Episcopacy, for whicli 
you plead, viz: the three orders and the Bishops' Apos- 
tolical supremacy. Jerome says, explicitly, that it 
grew up, ** little hy little," and obtained **more 
BY CUSTOM, t/uni hy ani/ real appointment,''^ 

You cannot object to the testimony of Jerome. He 
lived in the fourth and fifth centuries, having been born 
about A. D. 331, and died in 420 — was a man of great 
learning in his day — abundantly competent to investi- 
gate the history of the times before him — was himself 
attached to Episcopacy, and, therefore, by no means 
a prejudiced witness. Doctor Bowden affirms, that 
** when he is not obscure, no writer of antiquity has 
stronger testimony to the Apostolic institution of Epis- 
copacy.''! The obscurity of which he speaks, is in the 
above and similar passages of Jerome's writings; but 
it is only to the eye of an Episcopalian, that there is 

♦Opera Hieron. torn., VI, p. 19?. 
t Rovvden's letters, XXI, p. 324. 



201 

any obscurity in what we have quoted from Jerome. 
And here, it may be as convenient, as in any other 
place, to notice, what occasions that obscurity, and 
whence so great reliance is placed upon, the opinioni 
of the Fathers, and quotations from them, with which 
Episcopal writers, such as Dr. Bowden, and Dr. Cooke 
and others abound. It is not denied, that prelacy flour- 
ished soon after the first century, and that Episcopacy 
changed its character from Parochial to Diocesan very 
early. Nor is it denied that the Fathers whom Dr, 
Bowden and others have quoted, speak of and describe 
the very Diocesan Episcopacy, which he, in opposition 
to Dr. Miller's views, claims to be of divine origin; but 
their description and averment of what existed in their 
day, do not prove, that it existed in the Apostolic age; 
nor that it was of divine origin. 

It is of no manner of use to quote the Fathers, speak- 
ing of what was in their day, and to try to pass it ofl* 
as proof of what existed in the Apostles' days. We 
cannot be imposed upon in this w^ay. We require 
proof, from the scriptures, and from the Apostolic age. 
That has not yet been produced; and notwithstanding 
all the parade, that has been made of the Fathers, 
whose opinions you have admitted are of no great au- 
thority, the Diocusan character of Episcopacy, was, at 
one time, in this country, affirmed, by high Episcopal 
authority, to bo no way involved in the general ques- 
tion, it being maintained only, that the Bishops were 
of the superior order, with exclusive power to ordain, 
and the fact, or extent of their Diocese, being no way 
connected with the subject. Yea, reproach was cast 
on some — who discussed the claims of Episcopacy, de- 



202 

nying any thing like a Diocesan character to the 
Bishops of the New Testament — for being ignorant on 
the subject. Give up Diocesan claims, and Episcopacy 
will become, very soon, identical with the Presbytery 
of the Apostolic days. It is the fact of Diocesan sway, 
that gives prelatical Episcopacy its power. That such 
Episcopacy ever existed, or was authorized, in Apos- 
tolic days, has never been proved; nor can it be. 

Your main reliance is on the testimony of Ignatius, 
from whom you have liberally quoted. I have already 
said, that the genuineness of the productions ascribed to 
Ignatius may \vell be doubted ; that there are many in- 
ternal evidences, indicating, that they are the production 
of a later period than the first century ; and that even 
when admitted to be genuine, they aflbrd no more 
proof of the Episcopacy for which you plead, nor of the 
lower orders and inferiority of Elders and Deacons to 
the Bishops, than you can find among Presbyterians who 
have their Bishops, Elders and Deacons. 

I only add, to what I have already said on this sub- 
ject, that, as a witness, Ignatius, or rather the author of 
the seven epistles bearing his name, is not entitled to 
implicit credit. The author betrays gross ignorance 
of the scriptures in several cases, quoting or referring 
to passages as scripture, which are not in the New 
Testament, and expressing sentiments as scripture, 
which cannot bo legitimately inferred from it. In his 
epistle to the Trallians, he says, aideisthe de kai 

TON EPISKOPOX, HUMON H0« ChRISTOxN, KATHO HE- 
MEN noi makartoi dietaxanto Apostoloi, "rever- 
ence also the Bishop as Christ, as the holy Apostles 
have commanded us.*' The Apostles never gave such 



203 

a commandment. From the epistle to the Philadel- 
phians, you have quoted these words : ** But the Spirit 
spake saying in this wise, do nothing without the 
Bishop/' The Spirit never said any such thing, direct- 
ly, or by implication. Yet this is the witness whose tes- 
timony you so exalt, and concerning which your lan- 
guage makes the impression, that the rejection, if not 
impious, is calculated to slrenirthen infidelity ! ! 

The next witness, you cite, is Ircna^us. whom you 
quote in proof of your Apostolic succession, as follows: 
** We, he says, can reckon up those whom the Apos- 
tles ordained to be Bishops in the several churches, 
and who they were that succeeded them down to our 
time. And had the Apostles possessed any hidden mys- 
teries, which they imparled to none but the perfect, (as 
heretics pretend,) they would have submitted them to 
those men, to whom they committed the churches 
themselves ; for they desired to have those in all things 
perfect and unreproveable, whom they left to be their 
successors, and to whom they committed their own 
Apostolic authority ] He then adds, that because it 
would be endless to enumerate the success! on of Bishops 
all the churches, he would instance in that of Rome." 

Now, on this, I remark, that there is no proof that 
Irena^us meant exactly what you say he did by the 
succession. He was speaking of the unwillingness of 
the heretics to be bound, either by the scriptures, or 
by the traditions of the churches. His object was to 
disprove their pretending, that they had private mys- 
teries and were by these means wiser even th:m the 
Apostles. 

The passage you quote, I presume, is taken from 



204 

third chapter of the third book of Irenaeus. The ori- 
ginal is given in the second volume of Tracts on Epis- 
copacy, as appended by Dr. Cooke to his work on the 
invalidity of Presbyterian ordination. His translation 
will be found in the 130lh section, which, allow nne to 
say, is much more correct than the one you quote.* 
The words *' whom they left to be their (Apostles) suc- 
cessors, and to whom they committed their own Apo8- 
TOLic authority" arc a very free translation which 
Dr. Cooke would not venture to give. I have no h(3si- 
tation in pronouncing it unsustainable. The v/ords are 

QUOS ET f^UCCESSORES RELINQUEBANT SVVM IPSOilUM 
LOCUM MAOISTERII TRADENTES. Thc phraSC r UUM IP- 

SORUM LOCUM MAGisTERii, which vou havc rendered 
** their own •Apostolic auUwrihj,^' means no such thing ; 
but having asumed the identity of the Apostolic and 
Episcopal ofiicc, by a free translation, you use ihe 
word Apostolic. Thc passage reads, ** for they very 
much desired, that they should be perfect, and irrc|)rc- 
hensible in all things, whom they were leaving their 
successors, delivering their own place of their magis- 
tracy" or governmentnl rule. This is a very difierent 
thing from their Apostolic office. We have already 
shown, that whatever power the Apostles exercised, in 
the way of ordaining and governing the church, their 
MAGisTERiuM, was that of Presbyters, appropriate to 
that character and office, which they sustained in 
common with those, whom they ordained, and intro- 
duced into the churches. And it was, in this sense, 
that Irena3us understood the matter. For in the pre- 
ceding chapter, he says, '^when we appeal to the tra- 

♦Tracta on Epis. vol. IL pp. 257-250. 



I 205 

dition, which is from the Apostles, and is preserved in 
the churches, through the successions of the Presbyters, 
PER succEssioNEs Presbyterorum, ihcv opposc tra- 
ditions, saying, that they are wiser, not only than the 
Presbyters, but even than the Apostles."^ 

*' To represent the iviagisterium, which was given to 

officers, indifferently called Presbyters and Bishops, as 

an authority given to Bishops over Presbyters, is to 

adopt a conclusion without premises. To say that the 

i succession and mastership, affirmed by Irenaeus of Bi- 

■ shops, who were Presbyters, are a proof, that Bishops, 

in the modern sense, were intended by him, is the ^e- 

tiiio princijni, or weakness of begging the question. ^^\ 

i The succession, of which Irenasus speaks, and the 

' magistracy, of the Apostles and Presbyters or Bishops, 

, are very diff'erent things, from what you represent 

! them. Linus and Anacletus and Clemens, and **soon 

to Eleuthcrius,'^ of whom you speak, as forming the 

Apostolic succession in the church of Rome, were not 

called Apostles by Irenoeus, but Presbyters. **It is 

I proper," says he, '^ to obey those Presbyters, eis pres- 

1 byteris, who are in the church, *'his," these who 

have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown; 

who with the succession of the Episcopate, qui cum 

EPiscopATUS successione, have received the sure gift 

\ of the truth, according to the will of the Father.^J 

'*The succession from the Apostles, which he some- 
ii times affirms of Bishops, he also applied to Presbyters;§ 
r repeatedly thus discoursing, that he accounted Presby- 

*Irenaeus adversus Hcpreseos, lib. 3. c. 2. s. Q. 

tSee Wilson on the Prim. G;)V. of the Christian Churches, p. 32. 

t Irenaeus, lib. IV, c. 'XQ, a. 2, 

§Lib4, c. 33. 

18 



206 

ters to be Bishops, and Bishops, Presbyters. Where 
Irenaeus, therefore, makes Presbyters the successors of 
the Apostles, and ascribes the Episcopacy to Presbyters, 
he may be considered a very positive, as well as com- 
petent, witness, to establish, that there were no preach- 
ers, after the Apostles and Evangelists, of an higher 
order than that of Presbyters, nor any Presbyters of 
an inferior grade."^ 

I have as full right to claim Irenoeus as you have.f 
His testimony is as strong as to Presbyters, as to 
Bishops, having spoken of them as identical. Where 
you have found that he asserted, *' that he had at thai 
lime a correct list of all who had succeeded to that of- 
fice, in ALL ike churches from the time in which the ^Qpos- 
ties lived, down to his own day,^^ I know not. The fact 
is so singular, that I should be thankful for a reference 
to the place, although it w^ould not prove any thing 
more than would a chronological list of the Pastors of 
our difterent Presbyterian churches, who had succee- 
ded each other in their several parishes. 

The testimony of Hegesippus, which you quote to 
confirm that of Irenanis, is of no value. The writings 
of Hegesippus have perished, with the exception of the 
few fragments quoted by Eusebius, and one by Photius, 
and none of them prove a diversity of office among 
Presbyters, or a difference of order. All that this tes- 
timony proves, is, that there were certain men, in cer- 
tain churches, called Bishops, and that there had been 
a succession of them. It does not prove that they were 
Diocesan Bishops, or any other than the Parochiai* 

* Wilson on the primitive government of christian churches, p. 32. 
t bee W^alonis' Mesialini Dissertatio, pp. iit>8-'i71. 



207 

Bishops. For Irenaeus. in his epistle to Victor, refer- 
ring to the Bishops of Rome, \vho had succeeded So- 
ter, the 11th from the Apostles — ?. e,, up to his own 
day, calls them Presbyters. =^ 

As to the testimony of Cletnens of Alexandria, it is 
no more decisive, in your favor than the rest. In his 
^^ what rich man ca7i be saved,'^\ Clemens relates that 
John the Apostle, observing a young man, and turning 
to the Bishop who presided over all^ efi pasi to kathes 
TOTi PROBLEPSAS EPiSKOPo, Committed him to his care, 
in the presence of the Chinxh, epi tes ekklesias, who 
received him, tou deckomenolt. It was, therefore, 
NOT a collection of churches — but one assembly wor- 
shipping together, and the Bishop, consequently, was 

j the parochial Bishop or Pastor. John is then said to 
have returned, after repeating the charge, to Ephesus. 
■^nd the Presbyter taking home, no de presbuteros 

( ANALABON oiKADE, tlio youug man that had been com- 

I mitted to his care, nourished, educated and lost him. 

, Here we have Clemens, no doubt, in the language of 
his day, as it had been in that of the Apostles, exprcss- 

ily denominating the same person both a Bishop and a 
Presbyter. Also, John, returning, is represented to 
have addressed him as a Bishop: '* o episkope ; return 
to us your deposit." It thus appears that a successor 
of the last Apostle, and by John himself styled a Bishop, 
was notw^ilhstanding a Presbyter.^'^lj. 

J ' Your next witness is Polycrates ; but his testimony 
is no more to the point, than that of all the rest ; yea, 
rather less. You cite him only to prove ^' that Bishops 

* Lib. 5, 20. 
tCh.42, p.87. 
' J Wilson on the primitive government of chriilian churcheg, p. 40. 



208 

were settled in all the churches.'^ This is exactly what 
we have affirmed. Every church had its own Bishop 
or Pastor. You have not proved, that they were Dio- 
cesan Bishops, or Bishops of a grade superior to Pres- 
byters. We have evidence to the contrary, even fronri 
the mouth of Polycrates, for as you correctly state, 
Eusebius,* represents him to have said that there were 
'^ seven Bishops of his own kindred, and great multi- 
tudes of Bishops who assembled with him, to consult 
about the time of Easter.'^ It is a very rare thing to find 
seven cotemporancous Diocesan Bishops of the same 
kindred, and ** great multitudes" of Diocesans, as- 
sembling together, but it is not of parochial Bishops or 
Pastors. 

In Tcrtullian's testimony, quoted by you, there is 
no more proof than in Polycrates', of a divinely ap- 
pointed order of Bishops superior to Presbyters; but 
there is of the contrary. The highest priest, (not 
the High-priest,) was the chief presiding Presbyter. 
The word docs not, as TertuIIian uses it, apply to an 
order^ but to the individual. The highest, implies in- 
feriors of the same kind — ^just as the chief priest stood 
at the head, or was accounted the first of his band. 
We have found no trace of a superior order, but all 
along the Bishops and Presbyters are spoken of as be- 
ing of the same order — the Bishop being the presiding 
officer of the Presbytery — as we say, the Moderator. 
Whatever diversity existed, between the Bishop and 
Presbytery, to which TertuIIian refers, it did not 
spring from any original divinely instituted difTerence 
of order. For TertuIIian, in the very passage you 

*EcclC8iaatlcal History, B. V. C, 24. 




209 

quote, ** founds the authority of Bishops upon its ne- 
cessity for the preservation of the honor and peace of 
the church, and not upon any scriptural or Apostolical 
ordination or appointnnent/'* 

The peace of the church required that the adnnini»- 
tration of baptism should be under the direction of the 
Presbytery, in every congregation or church, and be 
perfornned, either by the presiding Presbyter, or by 
Bome other for him. Cases have occurred, in Presby- 
terian churches, where strict attention has been neces- 
sary to this thing. Yea, it is accounted injurious to 
the peace of the church, and altogether improper, where 
there arc several Presbyters and ministers of the gos- 
pel, living in the same place, and worshipping in the 
same church, for any one of them, to administer bap- 
tism in the congregation, but the parochial Bishop, or 
at his request. I have been so situated, that several of 
my ministerial brethren were regular members of my 
congregation, and Worshipped with us, yet none of 
them ever thought of administering baptism even to the 
members of their own families. They invariably acted 
on the rule which you quote Tertullian as sajing was 
observed for the peace of the church. 

Not one of the authorities you quote, proves the point 
for which they have been cited. 

♦ Wilson on ihe primitive government of the cbrietiau churches, p. 42. 



18* 



LETTER XIII. 
the apostolical successiox. 

Rev. and dear sir: 

My attention shall be turned, in this letter, distinct- 
ly to the Apostolical succession, which, on the au- 
thority of Eusebiu?, you say is brought down to the 
council of Nice, in the year 325, **and is so marked, 
that no link is broken in the chain which connects the 
Bishops with the Apostles, and of course with Christ.'' 
In doing so, it becomes proper to bring into view, what 
you mean by the phrase ** Apostolical succession,'^ 
and w^hat has been deemed; by prelatical writers, es- 
sential to it. 

It is very evident, to every attentive reader, that 
you mean by the *•' Apostolical succession'' something 
more, than that, the Lord Jesus Christ, through succes- 
sive generations, has preserved and transmitted the 
grand essential facts of Christianity and the knowledge 
of its elementary doctrines, by means of a succession 
of authentic writings, and has influenced, qualified, and 
called by His Spirit, a succession of men whom He 
has authorized to proclaim those facts and doctrines. 
Such a succession, in accordance with Arch-bishop 
Whately, we believe and teach, but it is nothing more 
nor less, than the perpetuation, of the truth, and of the 
church in the world, by men called and chosen of God 



212 

lo discharge the functions of nninigters and office bear- 
ers in His house. 

We have had a regular succession of presidents, gov- 
ernors, judges, members of senate and congress, &:c., 
since the foundation of our government, i. e. as one has 
retired, another has taken his place agreeably to the 
will of the people, whh whom is lodged the sovereignty 
and the right of election, &c. The oaths of office do 
not confer the power ; they are but the mode of con- 
ducting into their offices those called and chosen to 
fill them. The president retiring does not confer his 
power on his successor : nor one judge, governor, or 
member of congress, on another. Wc would smile at 
the simplicity of the man who v/ould tell us that the 
power and authority of this government were given at 
first to Washington, and to his cotcmporaries, and that 
he and they transferred it to their successors. It is the 
sovereign power — the people — directly or indirectly, 
that confer the power, and no man ever dreams of pro- 
ducing a perfect list of presidents, judges, &c. &c.. and 
of establishing this or the other man's power and right to 
office by proving the line of succession. Such notions, 
and doctrines, may be adapted to the monarchical gov- 
ernments of Europe, where ideas, of legitimacy, and 
of the hereditary succession, are interwoven with the 
very elements of their existence. But, in this country 
we understand the subject better; and laugh to scorn, 
alike the divine right of kings, and the notion, that the 
civil magistrate is the depositary of power, lodged there 
by heaven to be transferred to his successors. The offi- 
cers of the government, are not the fountains of pow- 
er ; because they are not the sovereign. Our liberties, 



213 

will never be in greater danger than when we practi- 
cally concede, to the functionaries of our government, 
the powers of sovereignty, which belong to the people, 
and believe, that official authority emanates from one 
to the other through a line of succession. Death, dis- 
grace, impeachment, a variety of causes, may inter- 
rupt and break the succession, and an office may, for a 
time, be without an incumbent; but the sovereign peo- 
ple, from whom emanates the power, can direct and 
call whom they please, to discharge the functions of 
the civil magistracy. The oalh of office, and the cere- 
mony of inauguration or induction, are but the acknow- 
ledged and approved modes of recognizing the fact, 
that, by the sovereign authority of the people, the per- 
sons have been appointed to their respective offices. 

These important and salutary principles w^ere not 
understood under the tyrannical government of the 
Caesars. The king or emperor was claimed to be the 
fountain of power, which flowed down in regular 
hereditary succession. The doctrine of legitimacy, as 
taught by European politicians, lies at the very root of 
the Apostolic succession. You have claimed, distinct- 
ly, and formally, that the headship or sovereignty of 
Jesus Christ, has been transferred to the Apostles, and 
has flowed down from them through their lineal succes- 
sors whom you style your Apostolic Bishops. Now, 
this we proclaim to be just as great an usurpation, as 
were presidents, governors, and judges, &c., to claim to 
appoint their successors, and to transfer their power to 
them. 

We say usurpation, not indeed of the sovereignty of 
the people, but of Jesus Christ. 



214 

The members of the church are not the sovereign 
power in the church ; nor are its officers. The Lord 
Jesus Christ has the supreme authority deputed to Him 
by the Father. ^' All power, in heaven and on earth is 
given unto Him." He has, as I have shown, the ex- 
clusive right of callin^f, choosing, commissioninc:, and 
clothing, His ministers with power. The power flows 
directly from Himself, just as, in our government, it 
does from the people. Ordination answers to the oath 
of office and induction into it ; being the public formal 
recognition of the fact, that Jesus Christ has exercised 
His sovereignty in the appointment of the man as His 
embassador. The succcssirn depends not on the flow 
of authority from Bishop to Bishop, Priest and Deacon, 
regularly convoyed or transferred as you teach : but 
on the will and grace, the spirit and providence of 
Jesus Christ our only sovereign lord and king. The 
list of successors is of no more consequence to prove 
the righl to exercise official power from Jesus Christ, 
than is the list of your predecessors, who have officia- 
ted as Rectors of St. PauKs church, to prove the legiti- 
macy of your right to officiate as their Rector. Per- 
sonal succession does not enter into that right, as any 
part of its elements. We glorify ihe sovereignty of 
Jesus Christ, and trace all official power and authority, 
directly, to Him, discarding, altogether, as one of the 
engines of oppressive tyranny and oppression, which 
have enslaved, alike the church and world, flowing 
down, through a long list of individuals — a privileged 
order, in regular lineal legitimate succession. 

I have thus brought into view, your ideas of **Apos- 
tolic succession/' held in common with those of pre- 



215 

latical writers, and contrasted them with those heldby 
the non-Episcopal denonninations. I would not mis- 
state or misrepresent them. If your language, and that 
of prelalical writers, has any definite meaning at all on 
this subject, you unquestionably teach, that the legiti- 
macy of the functions of the minister of Christ, depends, 
essentially, on the transfer, of the same power, and of 
the Spirit of God, from the Apostles down in regular 
succession through your Bishops, which Christ origi- 
nally transferred to them, that being v;hat the Father 
had conferred on Him. That I have not misappre- 
hended your views, and those of prelatical writers, I 
quote the language of Bishop Bevcridge: " the Apos- 
tolical line hal!i, through all ages, been preserved en- 
lire, there having been a constant succession of such 
Bishops in it, as were truly and properly successors to 
the Apostles, by virtue nf that Apostolic imposition of 
hands, which, being begun by the Apostles, hath been 
continued from one to another, ever since that time 
down to ours. By which means, the same Spirit winck 
was breathed by our Lord into his Jlpostles, is, together 
with their o^icc, transmiiied to their lawful successors, 
the pastors and governors of our church at this time; 
and acts, moves, and assists, at the administration of the 
several parts of the Apostolic office, in our days, as 
much as ever.^** These are your own sentiments; and 
the idea of a mysterious sacramental influence, by the 
imposition of hands, for the purpose of imparting the 
Holy Spirit, as an essential element of the Apostolical 
succession, is too plainly taught to be mistaken. 

*See his works, v. II, sermon on Christ's presence with his ministry. 



216 

It IS not; iherefore, at all surprising, that great care, 
and solicitude, should have been manifested, about the 
formal part of ordination; nor that the canons of coun- 
cils, and the common law of ecclesiastical bodies, should 
have, through much excessive care, rather multiplied 
the tests, and increased the impossibility of proving the 
genuineness of each link, in the interminable chain of 
Apostolic succession. It has thus become impractica- 
ble to tell, what is, or what is not essential. This, it- 
self, is sufTicient to condemn the whole doctrine, espe- 
cially when viewed in connection wiih its total inappli- 
cability to the great mnss of mankind, so deeply and so 
vitally interested in the fact of the genuine succession, 
according to the showing of its asserters. At all events, 
it demands a stern and severe rebuke, to be given to 
those prelates, who claim a superstitious reverence for 
themselves from the people, making their adherence to 
them essential to salvation, so putting themselves be- 
fore Christ, and yet, by the very necessities of ihc case, 
being themselves constituted the judges of their own 
pretensions. 

I do not exaggerate. Mr. T. Smyth has extracted 
from ** the Churchman," published in New York, under 
the sanction of Bishop Onderdonk, of that city, the fol- 
lowing, of which many other like examples might be 
taken from prelatical writers. Dr. Dodwell, says: 
*'Nonc but the Bishops can unite us to the Father and 
the Son. Whence it will follow, that whoever is dis- 
united frojn the visible coinmiinion of the church on earth, 
and PARTICULARLY from the visible communion of the 
Bishops, must consequently be disunited from the 
whole visible Catholic church on earth; and not only 



217 

so, but from the invisible communion of the holy angels 
and saints in heaven, and what is yet more, from Christ 
and God himself. It is one of the most dreadful aggra- 
vations of the condition of the damned, that they are 
banished from the presence of the Lord, and the glory 
of his povi^er. The same is their condition, also, who 
are disunited from Christ, by being disunited from 
his visible representative^^' This is putting the Bishop 
before Christ. No poor soul can be united to Him but 
through the Bishop ! ! What popery ! 

Dr. Hook says, '* unless Christ be spiritually present 
with the ministers of religion, in their services, those 
services will be vain'^ — a most precious truth, known, 
believed, and preached, by none more frequently, felt 
more powerfully, and applied with greater effect, than 
by many of the non-Episcopally ordained ministers. 
^^ But,'' continues Dr. Hook, ** the only ministrations, 
to which he has promised his presence, are those of 
Bishops, who arc successors, to the first commissioned 
Apostles, and to the other clergy acting under their 
sanction and hy their authority J''] This is just as false 
as it is arrogant, and is disproved, by the hundreds and 
thousands of those, who, have been converted from the 
error of their ways, and abounded in the fruits of holi- 
ness, through the ministrations of non-Episcopally or- 
dained ministers. The fruits of the Spirit — proving 
the presence of Christ — abound among the converts 
of a/itiinistry, disowning and disdaining to be united to 
GHrist, by ^^ Episcopal Bishops." 

Bishop B. Onderdonk of New York, says *^none but 
the Bishops can unite us to the Father, in the way of 

♦Lectures on the Apostolic succession, p. 105. 
t Idem. 

19 



218 

Christ's appointment, and these Bishops, must be such 
as receive their mission from the first commissioned 
Apostles. Wherever such Bishops are found, dispen- 
sing the faith and sacraments of Christ, there is a true 
Church ; unsound it may be, like the Church of Rome, 
but still a true and real Church — as a sick or diseased 
man, though unsound, is still a real or true man."* 
This needs no comment. It proves, that I have not 
misapprehended your idea of the ** true line of succcss- 
ion,'' which, though not as distinctly avowed, is nev- 
ertheless truly accordant with it. 

And now, let me bring your line of succession, to 
the tests, which you, in common with prclatical wri- 
ters, have established as the criterion of a true minis- 
try. It is essential, upon your ow^n principles, that you 
be able to show, that your ordination — which accord- 
ing to Bishop Ravenscroftjt is the only evidence you 
can have of Divine right — has been performed by one. 
who was himself a legitimate successor of a legitimate 
successor, through the whole line, up to some one of the 
Apostles, without a break in one solitary link. For, 
says Dr. Chandler, ^'if the succession be once broken, 
and the power of ordination once lost, not all the men 
on earth, not all the angels in heaven, without an im- 
mediate commission from Christ, can restore it.'^J I do 
not see, how even Jesus Christ himself, according to 
your doctrine, could restore it ; for you say, that He 
TRANSFERRED IHs earthly power over His Church. 

Dr. How^e§ — whose orthodoxy, on this point, in your 
Church, will not be disputed — maintains the very same 

♦Address on Unitv. 

tVind.and def. in Ev. and Lrit. Mag., TX, p. 539. 

+Appeal in behalf of the Ch. of Eng. in Am. N. V., 1767, quoted in Smyth's Lcc. 

§Vind. of Prot. Epis. Ch., p. 317. 



219 

position with Dr. Chandler. Are you prepared to show, 
that, through the long line of your ecclesiastical pedi- 
gree, in every solitary instance, nothing, according lo 
the canons setting forth the essentials of ordination, 
has invalidated the ordination ? Are you prepared to 
show, that none of your Episcopal sires were under 
sentence of deposition, when ordained? that the faith 
and morals of all, came up to the standard of Christ's 
prescriptions? that their baptism was not clinic nor 
heretical, but Episcopally valid ? that they had not been 
made Bishops, ^er saltum^ instead of passing through 
the two inferior grades? or that any other of the nu- 
merous disqualifications, judged, by the Church to ren- 
der ordination invalid, such as infancy, insanity, adulte- 
ry, murder, lapse in time of persecution, and mutilation 
or dismemberment of their bodies, like that Origen ef- 
fected on himself, have not vitiated the succession, poi- 
soned the fountain of Episcopal grace, and left you out 
of the church of God I 

I am not trifling on this subject, but soberly refer- 
ring to matters, which have been judged sufficient to 
invalidate ordination, as may be seen in Palmer and 
Bingham, referred to in Smyth's lectures.^ Until you 
can thus demonstrate in full detail, your claim to 
the lofty Episcopate, upon your own principles, you 
must excuse me, if I cannot recognize, and own 
you, as the Right Reverend Bishop of Michigan, in- 
vested with that ^^ plenitude of sacerdotal power which 
constitutes Episcopacy ;" however, I recognize and 
love you as the servant of Jesus Christ, possessed 
of those Episcopal powers, which you, in common, 

♦Smyth's Lectures on Apos. Sue, pp. 115, IIC, &c. 



220 

share with your Presbyters, and exercise, by their con- 
sent, as pj'imus inte?^ pares, first among your equals. 

The list of Eusebius to which you refer, as bringing 
down an unbroken chain till the year 325, has never 
been proved. It runs, Peter and Paul, I. Linus, 2. 
Anacletus, 3. Clement, 4. Euarestes, 5. Alexander, 
6. Xystus, or Sixlus, 7. Telesphorus, 8. Hyginus, 9. 
Pius, 10. Anicelus. 11. Soter, 12. Eleutlierus, &c. 
Eusebius follows in the track of Irena>us. Neither 
docs the New Testament, nor do Irenceus and Eusebi- 
us, furnish proof, that Peter was ever at Rome, at all. 
If ever he was, it must have been after Paul wrote his 
epistle. Those who affirm that he was, disagree 
in point of time, and the time specified, contradicts 
scriptural history. Both Jerome and Eusebius^ con- 
tradict the history of Peter, given in the Acts of the 
Apostles. "^^ The arguments which learned men have 
urged against the supposition, have not been answer- 
ed. 

Still less proof is offered that Peter, if ever at Rome, 
was fixed and resident Bishop there. Nor is there 
proof, from the scriptures, that ever Paul was estab- 
lished there as Bishop. He was there as prisoner, 
and taught in his own hired house. The church of 
Rome was not organized, by him. He found it organi- 
zed, when he arrived there. There is no proof that 
ever he was ordained to be the Apostolic Bishop of 
Rome. Too much is expected, if it is thought we will 
admit, that both Peter and Paul were fixed as Aposto- 
lic Bishops in Rome, and transferred their authority 
to their successors. Who was their immediate suc- 

♦ dee Stuart on the Rom., pp. 37, 38. 



221 

cesser, has not been settled. Eusebius says, Linus, 
but by whom he was ordained, he lias not told us. 
Certainly it was not by Paul or Peter, for he says, 
** after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was 
the first that received the Episcopato at Itome."* They 
did not transfer their authority, and the Episcopate, 
before their martyrdom, and it w^ill not be pretended 
they did after. Here, then, at the very outset, ** the 
Apostolic succession'' is met with difficulties. By 
whom was Linus ordained \ He received not the Epis- 
copate, says Eusebius, and of course, ordination, till af- 
ter the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. Inferences and 
suppositions here will not do for you. If you ask us 
to admit yours, we return the compliment, and tell you, 
we think ours are better, viz : that Linus was a Pres- 
byter, and had been such in the life time of Paul and 
Peter ; but was elected pastor or parochial Bishop, af- 
ter their martyrdom, as Eusebius says. Diocesan or 
prelatical Bishop before, he could not have been, or 
you will have Paul, Peter, Linus, all Apostolic Bishops 
over the Church in Rome, cotemporaneously, directly 
in opposition to an essential feature of your system. 
We have no difficulty in understanding how they could 
all be presbyter Bishops together, which the Bishops of 
that day were. 

Irena^us will not help *^ the Apostolic succession,'' 
but rather favors our views, although he says, that 
Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, yet he does not 
inform us -'how he came there, or where, or by whom, 
or whether validly ordained, or himself a valid subject 
for ordination. He does not even say, which of the 

•Eu»cb. his., II, 2. 

19* 



222 

Apostles delivered the Episcopate to Linus, nor that 
he was ever ordained by the imposition of hands at 
air' — and in what he does say, he does not pretend to 
establish proof, but gives it merely, as that which is 
held as a tradition from the Apostles,* Irenseus wrote 
some where from A. D. 177 to 202, more than a century 
after. The claim to legitimacy fails at the very start. 
It is truly astonishing, that such a prodigious claim 
should have so slender a foundation. The very first 
link in the chain of title is broken, or, what is equiva- 
lent, its validity cannot be cslablisiicd. 

Equally unfortunate is it i;i the second link. Irenaj- 
us and Eusebius say that Anencletus succeeded to Li- 
nus in the second year of Tilus, A. D. 79. Linus, af- 
ter having *-held the ofl'icc about twelve years, (i. e. 
from A. D. G7,) transferred it to Anencletus."! ** Now, 
Tertullian," says Mr. Smyth, '* and several others as- 
sure us, that this is an entire mistake, l''or that Clemens 
was first of all, and the next lineal descendant of Peter, 
or whoever it might be. Epij)hanius and Optatus again 
seriously aflirm, that Anencletus and Cletus were be- 
fore Clemens. Jerome, Augustine, Damasus and oth- 
ers, dinger from them all, and assert that Anencletus, 
Cletus, and Linus, were all anterior to Clemens, and 
the first links in this chain of living energy. Damasus 
is of opinion, that Peter ordained tuo successors, and 
not one merely. Vossius declares that before the time 
of Evaristus, two or three successors sat together on 
this Episcopal throne. ''j 

*4n the English church, the same controversy has 

*Sec Smyth's Lectures, p. 159, and Mui dock's Mos'ieim, C. v. I, p. 120. 

tEu^eb. Hist. HI). 3, c. 13 

:{:Leetures on Apoa., Sue,, pp. 19'-l-»2. Dr. Miller on the Ministry, p. 3Q7, 



223 

prevailed. Dr. Hammond will have it that Clement, 
Linus, and Anacletus all succeeded Peter, and held co- 
ordinate jurisdiction ; the first over the Jews, and the 
other over the Gentiles. This theory, Coteierius re- 
jects, being without any support ; while Dr. Pearson 
insists, that it is, as Cyprian says, contrary to the evan- 
gelic law, and to the rules of the Catholic institution, 
for two Bishops to preside together in one city. This 
also was detennined on in the council of Nice, and be- 
came a settled proverb, "one God, one Christ, one 
Bishop," two prelates being regarded, as Theodorel 
testifies, infamous. So that *' whoever is made Bishop 
after the first, is, says Cyprian, not a second Bishop, 
but no Bishop." Arch-bishop Potter again asserts, that 
*' Clemens not only conversed with the Apostles, but 
was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter." Bishop 
Pearson proves, that Linus died before Peter, and 
how could he succeed him? Thus it is made appa- 
rent, in what palpable and gross darkness, in what im- 
])enetrable obscuiity, the prime question is involved, 
on which this whole cause rests — the corner stone 
and foundation, on w^hich the statelv structure of pre- 
lacy, Romish and Anglican is built. "=^' It is much easi- 
er for us to establish a succession of Presbyters — a 
bench of Presbyter-bishops, during the first and early 
part of the second century, in the church of Rome, 
than for you to prove the legitimacy of your ordina- 
tion to the Episcopate, upon your own avowed princi- 
ples of auiiwrity transferred hy the imposition of 
hands, in the only true Apostolico-Episcopal suc- 
cession. 

*fc*ec Sray til's Leclurcs, note C, p. 15'2. 



224 

Other discrepancies, in the historical statements, than 
these 1 have referred to, might be noticed, showing, 
either the fracture of the links, or the impossibility of 
proving, what you have assumed, a regular, unbroken 
line of Bishops in your sense of the term, legitimately 
consecrated by the imposition of the hands of the Apos- 
tles' successors. Enough has been said to press the ad- 
vocates of prelacy with the burden of proof, from 
which they can never be relieved, if the argument will 
be fairly and candidly met ; and to let you see that you 
will not be allowed, either to beg the question, or to 
presume that we will take your conjectures and infer- 
ences for fact. You may pronounce us unreasonable, 
and hypercritical, and say your proof "ought to be 
conclusive,*' but where such lofty claims are asserted, 
you must make good your title, through the whole chain. 

You carry two strings to your bow, to either of 
which you aflix your arrows, as it best suits you. At 
one time you pull the Roman string, and at another the 
Anglican; and to kill us outright, at'another, both to- 
gether. The very fact of your (juoling Euscbius, and 
referring to his line of succession, starting from Rome, 
and also, the further fact, that your printed catalogue 
of the succession, traces your title through the Roman 
channel — identify you with the Church of Rome, and 
force you to acknowledge her to be a true church of 
Jesus Christ. 

You have, in this respect, been consistent, and kept 
an open door of retreat, should you be cut off from 
Anglican pretensions. ^* Even if we had received our 
ministry, through that source," you say. **it could do 
us no harm. For that church, and many of her elo- 



m quent 
■ I 



225 



quent defenders, I have great respect. For, with all 
her errors, she has the regular succession of the minis- 
try, and is a part of the Catholic church." Spirits of 
the mighty dead! — ye Manes of Ridley, and Latinner, 
and Cranmer ! what think you of your Episcopal suc- 
cessors, who thus set at nought the testimony for 
which ye died ? and shake hands over your mouldering 
ashes, with *^ Christ's enemy and antichrist," whom 
ye refused ! I refer to the writings of the Fathers, 
to the homilies of the English church, and to tlie nni- 
forni testimony of the reformed churches of England, 
Scotland, France, Holland, Germany, Denmark and 
Switzerland, in proof of the fact, that they regarded the 
church of Rome to be ** idolatrous and antichristian." 

Here let me quote the language of Towgood, for 
your special attention. *'Now it is only from this 
(apostate church) that you derive, by ordination, your 
spiritual descent. You confess yourself born of her as 
to ecclesiastical pedigree; and the sons of this (church) 
you acknowledge as brethren, by admitting their or- 
ders as regular and valid, whereas those of the pro- 
testant Churches you reject. If a priest, ordained with 
all the superstitions and idolatrous rites of this anti- 
christian and false church, comes over to (your church) 
you admit him as a brother duly ordained, without 
obliging him to pass under that ceremony again; but if 
a minister of the reformed Churches, joins himself to 
you, you consider him, as but a layman, an unordained 
person, and oblige him to receive orders according to 
your form. How, sir, is it possible for you to account 
for such a procedure 1 Can that church, which is no 
true church, impart valid and true orders 1 Will you 



226 

rest the validity and regularity of your administrations, 
on your receiving the sacerdotal character from the 
Bishops and Popes of the Romish church ? many, if not 
most, of whom, were men of corrupt and infamous 
lives — men, who so far from being regular and valid 
ministers in the church of Jesus Christ, had neither 
part nor lot in this matter^ their hearts not being 
right in the sight of God, Such men, therefore, could 
not possibly, duly or regularly, officiate therein; con- 
sequently had no power to communicate, or convey, 
orders or offices in the christian church. Whatever 
offices they conveyed, therefore, are, at best, doubtful 
and suspicious, if not absolutely null, irregular and void. 
So that really, your own orders, if strictly examined, 
may minister great doubt and disquietude of mind."* 

I appreciate your remarks in reference to invective 
and denunciation, so calculated to irritate, and have, 
therefore, omitted a few epithets, which Towgood, in 
the above extract, has borrowed from the homilies of 
the Church of England. Although I condemn and op- 
pose the system of popery, yet would I not reproach 
all indiscriminately w^ho embrace it. Although as an 
organized society, I account the church of Rome an 
apostate church, yet I love to think that such men as 
Claude, Anselm, Bradvvardine, Grossetcsle, Pascall, 
Fenelon, Massillon, Xavier, and many ardent and de- 
voted missionaries of the cross, have been the friends 
of Jesus Christ, and doubtless are numbered among the 
members of His true and invisible church — His mysti- 
cal body. The true Church of Christ comprises his 
elect out of all kindred, people, tongues, and sects. 

• See Towgood' 8 Dissent, pp. 95, 96. 



227 

Even to this hour, I doubt not, that it may be, in the 
idolatrous Church of Rome, as it was in the idolatrous 
Church of Israel, the Lord hath reserved some for Him- 
self that have not bowed the knee to Baal. Gladly 
would I discharge the offices of love, and breathe the 
spirit of good will, even towards those whom I fear may 
be deceived by the subtlety of the old serpent. The 
spirit of persecution and bitterness I loathe. But the 
very offices of love, require me to bear my testimony, 
against the fatal soul destroying errors of the Roman 
Catholic Church; nor will fidelity to Jesus Christ suffer 
me to wink at or disguise, what I believe to be the true 
character of the system of popery pourtrayed in the 
word of God. Should I flatter any, directly or indi- 
rectly, in the belief, that the protestant testimony 
against the Church of Rome is not true; and should I re- 
cognize her as a true Church of Jesus Christ, when He 
accounts her idolatrous and apostate, my charity would 
deserve the severest reprehension. It would be mere 
courteous indifference, alike to His honor and to the 
eternal welfare of my fellow men. 

And here I think it proper, to refer you to Dan,, vii, 
24-26; 2 Thess., ii, 7-12; Tun,, iv, 1-2, and the 17th 
and 18th chapters of the book of Revelations, remark- 
ing, only, that you must have renounced the uniform 
protestant exposition of the word of God, before you 
could have been betrayed into such gross inconsistency, 
as to disown and renounce the whole illustrious com- 
pany of the protestant Churches of Scotland, France, 
Switzerland, Germany, Poland, Hungary and Denmark, 
and in preference, make love to the Church of Rome. 
Verily, I fear the result, when all this is done so heed- 



228 

lessly of the warning voice of God, ** Come out of her 
my people, that ye may not be partakers of her sins, 
and that ye receive not of her plagues." 

I feel deeply grieved for the cause of protestantism, 
by the avowals you have made; and, therefore, cannot 
resist the inclination to present you, a very brief sketch 
of the church and priesthood, whose alliance you evi- 
dently would prefer to those of the reformed Churches, 
** Even Baronius would not deny, but confesses, that, 
in a succession of fifty Popes, there was not a pious 
man.''* •' John 22, was a heretic and denied the im- 
mortahty of the soul; John 23, Gregory 12, and Bene- 
dict 13, were all popes and infallible heads of the Church 
at the sanictimc, and the council of (yonstance cashier- 
ed the whole of them as illogilimate. The council of 
Basil convicted Pope Eugenius of schism and heresy. 
Pope Marccllinus actually sacrified to idols. Pope Li- 
berius was an Arian, and subscribed to that creed. 
Anastasius was excommunicated as a heretic by his 
own clergy. (Three names on your list.) Sylvester 
2d sacrificed to the devil. Formosus w^as promoted to 
the chair through perjury. Sergius 3 1, caused his pre- 
decessors body to be dug out of the grave, its head cut 
oft', and then flung into the Tiber. Boniface deposed, 
imprisoned, and then plucked out the eyes of his pre- 
decessor. In a word, many of the Popes have been 
atheists, rebels, murderers, conjurors, adulterers, and 
Sodomites. 

Papal Rome has far exceeded in crime her Pagan 
predecessor. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at, 
that the Popes, though always assuming a new name, 



*s 



Smyth's lectures, p. 199. 



229 

yet, never take the name of Peter. It is a curious 
fact that they always shun it. Those who have re- 
ceived that name at the font, have always changed it 
when they reached the chair. They fear, that the 
name of Peter, would too plainly show their apostacy 
from the Apostle Peter's virtues ; and men would be 
apt to exclaim, ' how unlike is Peter the Pope, to Peter 
the Apostle.*"* 

Your preference for such an alliance, and your re- 
fusal of ministerial intercourse with the ministry of 
Protestant churches, is a melancholy comment on the 
tendency of your doctrine of ** Apostolic succession,'' 
and whither, operating on the love of consistency, it will 
carry you. I earnestly desire, and pray, that you may 
be kept uncontaminated by the delusions of *' the false 
prophet," free from " the mark of the beast," and sep- 
arate from the communion of *' them that worship his 
image." For I truly desire your own personal useful- 
ness, the advancement of your churches in holiness, 
and the whole weight of your influence, station, office, 
labors, to be on the side of protestant Christianity — and 
of the pure and noble principles, to whose successful 
operation and vindication, we, as a nation, owe our 
glory and prosperity. 

* Stevens* spirit of the Churcti of Rome- 



20 




LETTER XIV, 

the angl[can succession'. 

Rev. and dear sir: 

The corrupt and vitiated channel of ihe Romish 
church, might well render Episcopalians averse to tra- 
cing the true line of Apostolic succession through it. 
It is therefore, not at all surprising, that so much de- 
light and eagerness, should have been, of late, manifes- 
ted in attempting to find a new one. You tell us, that 
^' it is generally supposed that St. Paul was the first 
messenger of truth who visited Great Britain. '^ The 
evidence, you refer to, in proof of this supposition^ is 
the fact, that ^' this opinion was held at a very early 
period,'' and the remark of Clemens Romanus, A. D. 
70, *' that the Apostle Paul traveled to the utmost 
bounds of the west." Which expression you say, on 
the authority of Theodoret and Jerome was ** used to 
denote the British islands.'' On this slender founda- 
tion, you at one moment feel, that you can do no more 
than merely raise the presumption, ^* that Christianity 
was ear/y introduced into these islands." And yet, in 
the very next, you say, that ^' the first records of the 
church, established there, show that it was organized, 
as all the churches were, by the Apostle, and in three 
orders, with the Bishop as supreme. That the succes- 
sion was carried there by St. Paul, and continued, as 



232 

you will see uninterrupted in the church." It is my 
design, in this letter, to show that you have no founda- 
tion for such unqualified statements. 

Stillingfleot declares *' that by the loss of records of 
the British churches, we cannot draw down the suc- 
cession of Bishops from the Apostles limes.''* The 
Rev. Henry Carey says '' we have no mention of Bi- 
shops in the British church, nor do we find umj further 
information on the subject at all, until the year 314.1 
The Rev. E. Bloomfield says, "on the authority of 
the British triades, we are informed, that Caraclacus, 
a valiant British prince, having been carried prisoner 
to Rome, found the gospel preached in that city ; and 
saw, in progress of time, Brennus and some others of 
his family, converted to the christian reli2:ion. On 
their return to Britain, they esteemed themselves hap- 
py, in being permitted to bear such a precious treasure 
to their countrymen. They were accompanied, on 
their return, by several christian teachers, among whom 
was Aristobulus,pro&^//;/// the same as is mentioned by 
the Apr)slle Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthians.'" j 
Even the latest historian on this subject, Mr. E. Chur- 
ton, whoso book has been republished in this coun<try, 
and highly lauded by Bishop Ives, of North Caroli- 
na, does not adventure further than to say, it is a 
mere supposition^ that either Paul was *' himself in 
Britain, or that he sent some of the companions of his 
travels to make known on these shores the name of 
Christ.''§ He finds none of the Records of which you 

*Origines nrilannicfe, pp. 81-85. 

tThe Apostolical Succession in the church of England, p. 8. 

JHist. of the Mtirtyrs, p. 1. 

§Thc cj rly English Church, p. 17. 



233 

speak so confidently, but says, " the woes and persecu- 
tions which followed the first preaching of the gospel 
in Britain, have destroyed all certain records of Chris- 
tianity in these early times.''* 

The first introduction of the gospel to Britain, has 
been attributed to James, the son of Zebedee, whom 
Herod put to death, *Rcts^ xii, 1 ; to Simon Zelotes, 
to Peter, to Joseph of Arimathea, as well as to Paul.t 
Nothing certain can be ascertained on this subject — 
yet on Theodoret's explanation of a phrase, used two 
hundred years before, you assert boldly, that Paul 
founded your Apostolic church in Britain!! Verily, if 
we are to believe things at this rate, there is nothing 
too absurd that we may not be persuaded, on the au- 
thority of a Bishop, to believe. 

Perhaps, however, your '' first records of the church 
that was established there," do not go back quite so 
far, and you mean to be understood only to refer to 
the fact, that ^* as early as the year 314, we have an 
account of the council of Aries, and among those as- 
sembled, there were several Bishops from Britain. 
Also in the council at Sardica, in the year 347, and at 
the council of Ariminium, in the year 359. This," you 
add, ''is important testimony, going to show the early 
organization of the church in Britain, and also that they 
had the true succession of the ministry, and that the 
Bishops, (as the Apostles,) were the supreme rulers in 
the church." This is coming to a conclusion by too 
rapid a process. The fact, that there were English 
Bishops at the synod of Aries, in 314, does not prove, 

*The Early English Church, p. 19. 
tMurdock's translation of Alosheim, I, p. 09. 

20^ 



234 

that lliey were "Episcopal Bishops" — nor thai the 
English church survived from the first without inter- 
ruption — nor that you have the true line of Apostolical 
succession through it. It is an easy matter to account 
for the appearance of Bishops, in the council of Aries, 
without admitting that christian churches were then 
existing in England. Persecution had made them fly. 
For Mr. Churton says, *'in llic time of Dioclesian, it 
pleased the Almighty to pernnt tiic cause of truth, 
for the space of ten years, (A. D. 303, up to 314,) 
to undergo the most severe trial which the world had 
ever known. Gildas, the earliest British historian, telis 
us, that at this time, the christian churches through- 
out the world were levelled with the ground; all the 
copies of the scriptures, which could any where bo 
found, were burnt in the public streets, and the Priests 
and Bishops of the Lord's house, were slaughtered, to- 
gether with their charge; so that, in some provinces, 
not even a trace of Christianity remained.''* 

But, admitting, either that there were Bishops resi- 
ding in England at the close of the Dioclesian persecu- 
tion, which was not so severe there, as in other pro- 
vinces, or, that the persecuted and expatriated or fugi- 
tive Bishops, who escaped the sword, returned ngain, 
there is direct and positive [jroof, that subsequently, the 
churches there, were utterly ruined. In the progress 
of the fourth century, the heresies of Arius, and after- 
wards, of Pelagius, contributed to corrupt the British 
churches. St. Germain, Bisliop of Auxerre, and Lu- 
pus, Bishop of Troyes, from Gaul or France, at the re- 
quest of tiie British christians, visited their island. At 

♦The early English church, i>. 20. 




235 

that time, there were no village churches, but their 
Bishops had to preach, on some occasions, in the streets, 
and in the open fields. Although this mission was suc- 
cessful in putting down error — the Britons were ex- 
posed to other troubles. A great portion of their young 
men had been drawn away, by military conscriptions, 
to fight for different pretenders to the throne of the 
then falling empire, most of whom never returned. 

A party of them settled in that part of France called 
Brittany or Bretngne, from whom it received its name; 
where a dialect of the Welch, is^still spoken by the 
country people, and where a place of refuge was af- 
forded, aflerv/ards, to the distressed christians of Britain. 
Notwithstanding, the Rom.ms sent troops into Britain 
till A. D. 420, and assisted the natives '• to build again 
the wall of the Emperor Seveius, which extended 
across from the mouth of the Tync to that of the Esk, 
beyond Newcastle and Carlisle, as a protection against 
the Picts and Scots,'' yet these barbarian tribes made 
bloody inroads, while the Saxons, from Germany, 
crossed over and carried off spoil from the nearest 
shores. vSt. Germain successfully resisted these inva- 
sions, and advised the Britons to found monasteries to 
preserve religion. Notwithstanding all the laudable 
efforts made to preserve religion, *' it is hnpossibh^'^ 
says Mr. Churton, ^^ to find any thing more disastrous 
than the state of Britain at this time. A famine had 
followed the ravages of the Picts and Scots; then arose 
a bloody war among the native chiefs, and the Roman 
Britons, those who had lived with the Romans in their 
cities, and learnt their language, were cut oft* almost 
to a man." 



236 

** While they were in this state of weakness, the 
Picts and Scots returned ; and the sad and suffering 
people of South Britain, with Vorligern their prince, 
resolved to invite the Saxons, A. D. 449. From this 
time, Christianity began to disappear from the most im- 
portant and fruitful provinces of Britain. As the Sax- 
ons founded, one alter another, their petty kingdoms, 
they destroyed the churches, and Ihe priests fled be- 
fore them"* — some to Brittany and some to Wales. 
A long interval of heathen darkness now followed, 
and continued nearly 150 years, till Augustine, A. D. 
496, came as the missionary of Pope Gregory the great, 
and succeeded in the conversion of king Eihelbert, and 
in the introduction of Christianity. *' The peculiar 
form of this reh'gion," says Mr. Turner, ** which Gre- 
gory and Augustine introduced, was of course that sys- 
tem which Rome then possessed. "t The papacy had 
been distinctly and characteristically developed, in its 
odious features. 

With all your boast, therefore, about the Anglican 
Church, it is through the channel of Rome, by Augus- 
tine, that you must trace your Episcopal powers. The 
first seven of the prelates of Canterbury, ^' were Ital- 
ians or foreigners." Twenty-nine Arch-bishops of the 
Church of England, between the 7th and 15th centu- 
ries were ordained, direct by the Pope, or by the 
Pope's legate. The Arch-bishop of York, Chicheley, 
was ordained by Gregory the 12th, one of the three 
Popes at that time contending for the tiara, who were 
all of them deposed. Out of thirty-six Arch-bishops of 

* The early English church, p. 34. 

t Turner's history of the Anglo-Saxon§, I, p. 231. 




237 

Canterbury prior to Cranmer, twelve had been conse- 
crated by the Popes.* The Anglican succession is iden- 
tical with that of Rome, which Stillingfleet says " is as 
muddy as the Tiber itself." I ask, then, with all kind- 
ness, though wounded with such boastings, how long 
are we to be trifled with, and insulted, by the empty 
flourishes of prclatical writers, and be challenged to 
produce a Jlaw in the long line of descent, and boast- 
fully told that you have the lists of your Bishops from 
the earliest to the present times? We point you — to 
the flaw in the very first link in Linus — to the flaw in 
his successor — to the flaw in the first link of the Angli- 
can succession — to the wide gap of heathenism which 
followed the destruction of the Enfrlish Churches — to 
the deposed Pontiffs and Bishops, whose former eccle- 
siastical acts were declared invalid; and we say there 
is nothing but a flaw in it from beginning to end. It 
is a vein so replete with faults, as to render it unprofi- 
table and useless to work in it. 

You say *' the old British Church was not established 
by, nor placed under any foreign ecclesiastical power,'^ 
and you quote, according to Fuller, in proof of the fact, 
the rejection of the proposition, of Augustine, by the 
Arch-bishop of Cambria, with seven Bishops and other 
clergy, *Miiade to bring the Catholic Church of Britain 
under the Roman Bishop." Yet, in the next breath, 
you acknowledge that ^* the British Church, the true 
Catholic Church, of which the Episcopal Church is a 
part, (your language here, needs some explanation,) 
was foixed, by the civil authority, into submission, and 
by degrees, lost her independence." In proof of this, 

* S©« Gary on the Apostolic succession, p. IP, as quoted in Smyth's lectures, pp, 
302, 203, 



238 

you quote Blackstone's remarks about the island of 
Great Britain, and the relation of its civil authorities, 
'Mhe Anglo-Saxon dynasties," and ** William the Con- 
querer," to the Roman Pontiff. The island of Great 
Britain, and the civil authorities are not the Church and 
Bishops. You might have adduced abundance of much 
more pertinent proof than this, of the subjection of the 
English Church to the Roman Pontiff. 

But let us, for a moment, look at the attempt of Au- 
gustine to bring, what you call, the British Church, 
into subjection to the Pope. One would suppose, from 
the way in which you speak, that he found Churches 
in that part of England where he was established as 
Arch-bishop of Canterbury — in the dominion of Ethel- 
bert — in Kent and Essex — and that you have identified 
the English Church, through which you trace your 
succession, with the old British church. I will not 
say, whcllicr you neglected to advert to the history of 
the country or not; but your language makes the im- 
|)ression — and your argument is evidently constructed 
accordingly — that the old British church, which re- 
jected Augustine, and refused to come under the do- 
minion of the Pope, but was gradually afterwards sub- 
dued, was your proper ancestor. Were you not aware, 
that Augustine's oak was on the bank of the Severn, 
in Wales, and that the Arch-bishop of Cambria, and 
the seven Bishops, which Augustine endeavored to 
bring over to the See of Rome, were Welch Bishops ? 

The British christians, and the Bishops of the Low- 
hmd country, fled before the Anglo-Saxons. St. Samp- 
son, Bishop of York, fled to Brittany, in France, where 
many British christians found shelter ; while others 



239 

sought it in the mountain regions. Mr. Churton says, 
that ** THE LAST British Bishops, Theonas, of London, 
and Thadioc, of York, retreated with the remnant of 
their Jlocks into Wales. **^ The pagan Saxons, having 
overrun all the lowland part of the country, the saints 
whose memory is honored in Wales, and St, Columba, 
in the north, were the only remaining Fathers of the 
church of Britain. 

St. CoLUMBA was from one of St. Patrick's monas- 
teries, Durrogh, in Ireland, who, in A. D. 563 or 565, 
sailing from the west of Ireland, landed on the island 
of I, afterwards called lona or Icolumkill, one of the 
western isles. He w^as of the Culdees, and established 
monasteries, which might, more properly, be termed 
colleges, and which Dr. Jamieson has shown, were, in 
fact, the seminaries of the church, both in North Bri- 
tain and in Ireland. 

Before you can identify your Anglican succession, or 
English church, — which commences with the mission 
of Augustine, A. D. 596 — with the old British church- 
es, existing anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and 
which had been utterly sw^pt from North Britain, you 
must show how you obtained the succession of which 
you boast through the churches of South Britain, 
either from the Welsh Bishops, or from the Culdees. 
When, and how, it became incorporated with the Ro- 
man succession, through the line of Augustine, so as to 
preserve the British succession, you have not shown. 
You have, however, admitted, that the old British 
church was subdued, so that from the sixth to the six- 
teenth century, she was in a state of vassalage, when 

♦The early English Church, p. 33, 



240 

only, ** she had the power of throwing off the foreign 
yoke imposed on her" — a strange account indeed of a 
church, whose Bishops you boast have had the power 
of Christ's earthly Headship transferred to them ! 

**Is it not a matter of indubitable certainty, that, 
from the seventh to the fifteenth century, the Arch- 
bishops of Canterbury, and of York, as wxll as seve- 
ral of the Bishops, were, in general, consecrated by 
the Pope or his legates! From A. D. 6G8 to 1414, I 
find no fewer than 17 Arch-bishops of Canterbury thus 
consecrated ; and from 1119 to 1312, I find 12 Arch- 
bishops of York, indebted solely to Rome for all the 
gifts they conferred on others.''*" 

An Italian Bishop, Birinus. was placed at Dorches- 
ter, out of which see, afterwards, were that of Win- 
chester, and others at Leicester, and Sidnacestcr, sup- 
posed to be Stow at this day, which were removed to 
Lincoln. 'J'he first five Arch-bishops of Canterbury, 
were all Italians. The Scottish Bishops of Lindisfarnc 
exerted a more efiicicnt influence, to introduce Chris- 
tianity among the people, and its rapid progress, was es- 
pecially owing to the disciples of Columba, the Cul- 
dees. The Roman Bishops, the disciples of Augus^ 
tine and Paulinus, objected to thoir ordination, and a 
council was held, A. D. GG4, on the subject. Wilfrid 
contended for the rule of Italy and France. Being ap- 
pointed to the bishopric of York, he refused to receive 
ordination from the Scottish Bishops of Lindisfarne or 
Litchfield, and there being no Arch-bishop at Canter- 
bury, and Roxbury being vacant, he obtained it from 
Agilbert, at Paris. Chad was in the nneantime conse- 

*Powell on Apos. Sue, sec. xii, p. 123. 



241 

crated Bishop of York, two Welsh Bishops having as- 
sisted at his ordination. On the return of Wilfrid from 
France, finding his see occupied, he stayed in Kent, 
where there was no Bishop, and ordained Priests, till 
Theodore, the Pope's primate of England, urged Chad 
to be reordained, to which he consented, and soon af- 
ter retired from his bishopric. Wilfrid then entered 
on the duties of the see, and after having been twice 
deposed, was restored, and is said to have left some 
thousands of Monks within the bounds of his Diocese, 
divided first into the sees of York and Hexham, and 
afterwards into four. Ripon and Landisfarne being ad- 
ded, and a fifth w^hich lay in Scotland, at Abercorn, or 
Whithern in Galloway. "^ 

Under Theodore and Wilfrid, Rome triumphed. 
The Welsh christians were not even allowed to receive 
the sacrament "with the English, unless they confor- 
med. Of the former Mr. Churton says, ^^ he found the 
church divided, he left it united ; he found it a mission- 
ary church (not as you say the old British church) 
scarcely fixed in more than two principal provinces ; 
(that mission having commenced with Augustine) he 
left it, what it will ever be, while the country remains 
in happiness and freedom, the established church of 
England.''! This is a very different account of the 
Apostolical succession, from yours. It is given by the 
most recent and undisputed Episcopal authority. You 
cannot, therefore, disconnect yourself from Rome. 
Through that channel must you trace your line of Apos- 
tolical succession. 

*See Churton's Early English Church, pp. 75-86. 
tChurton'a Early English Church, pp. 75-6. 

21 



242 

Here, then, I might pass at once to consider the 
claims to '* Apostolic succession,'' advanced for the 
Bishops of *the Reformed Protestant Episcopal Church 
of England. But I have a word or two to say yet, 
about '* the old British Church." Upon the revolution 
in Northumbria, which raised Oswald to the throne, 
as ^' Lord of Britain," he obtained a Bishop from the 
Scotch Churches, and, as Mr. Ciiurton says, establish- 
ed him on *^ the Island of Lindisfarne, on the coast of 
Northumberland, near to Bambrough, his own royal 
seat, A. D., G35. This w^as the first foundation of the 
bishopric of Durham."^ 

This Scottish missionary, Aidan, a monk of lona, of 
the monastery of St. Columba, was followed by many 
other Scottish monks and priests, who were called 
Culdees, {quasi cultores Deiy) from their great piety 
and devotion. They were Presbyters, who had their 
superintendent, and who was designated Bishop, but 
belonged to the same order. Tlic council of Ceale- 
hythe, held A. D., 81G, decreed that no Scotch priest 
should perform any function in England, and the rea- 
son assigned was, their icant of ^IctropoUtan Bishops, 
their contcwpt of other orders^ and the counciFs igno- 
rance of the nature of their ordination. f Their Bi- 
shops, or the rectors of their several cells, i. e. Colle- 
ges, were chosen and ordained, by the members of 
these societies. 

Dr. Jamieson thinks, and with every appearance of 
reason, that, while residing in their monasteries, and 
teaching those around them, when an opportunity oc- 

* Early English Church, p. 65. 

t See Rees' Encyclopocdia, Art. Culdees. 




243 

"curred, without having a fixed charge, they were cal- 
led Presbyters, but that when sent to a particular 
charge, in the Pastoral relation, then they were called 
Bishops.* The character of their government, and 
the nature of their ordination, have been subjects of 
dispute, w^ith the merits of which, I am not immediate- 
ly concerned. It is enough for me simply to state the 
fact, in order to show, that if you claim, that the An- 
glican succession does not flow through the Roman 
Church, but from the old British Churches, founded by 
the CuldeeS; it is, in the language of Stillingfleet, ^* as 
muddy" as the other. We are not sufficiently credu- 
lous to swallow down all that prelatical writers would 
have us take for granted on this subject. Proof must be 
produced. Every link must be shown, historically, to 
be genuine and firm. There must be no inferences or 
admissions about it — where such a prodigious claim is 
asserted. Till this is done, we insist upon being treat- 
ed with less arrogance ; and recommend a little more 
modesty, less of the spirit of exclusiveness, and of pro- 
selytism, less noisy laudations of the Episcopal church, 
and of her true line of Apostolical succession, and more 
of that charity and cordial fraternal intercourse, that 
Will secure a reciprocation of fellowship, and co-opera- 
tion wdth the ministry of other denominations, and in- 
terchange of ministerial offices, w'hich we are ever 
ready to extend, even to those whose claims, never- 
theless, W'e regard as preposterous, but w^hom we greet 
as brethren beloved, for the Masters' sake. 

Take the line of your succession, then, either way, 
it is but a rope of sand, and will not bear the terrible 

♦The Christian Magazine for 183*2, of Ass. Ref. Syn. of N. Y., v. I, p. 107. 



244 

weight of consequences you attach to it. It runs for 
a thousand years, niore or less, through the channel of 
an idolatrous and apostate church. ^'The orders of 
the English prelatlc Church, being derived from Rome,'' 
as Mr. Smyth says, with great truth and force, **^re 
less than nothing and vanity. Her whole unbroken 
line of prelalic succession, idolized as it is, is what the 
Apostle defines other idols, quite as rationally worship- 
ped by their blinded devotees, a mere nothing in the 
world. Even in the fullness of its boasted suprema- 
cy, it is in straits ; and when brought to the test of his- 
torical investigation, it perishes in the fire of probation, 
and is thus shown to be the hay, wood, and stubble, 
which cannot endure the breath of this fiery furnace."*'* 

It is by no means a pleasant task, to float along this 
turbid channel, for the waters grow thicker and fouler, 
the further we proceed : but the claims you assert, are 
so lofty, and have been advanced so boldly, that we 
are compelled to it. You have your succession from 
an apostate church. For up to the time of the reform- 
ation, the Roman and Anglican churches were, as far as 
England is concerned, identical. The Roman Church 
was branded by the English reformers as anti-christian, 
heretical, and idolatrous. As such she could not transfer 
the true line of Apostolical succession, for she had it not 
• herself. Admit her to be a true church, and the Church 
of England is schismatical, and all her orders null and 
void, for Rome excommunicated her. Take it either 
way, and the succession fails. f 

Or, say you, that she did but throw off her allegiance, 
to the Pope, and thus become independent'? Then, I 

^Lectures on Apos. Sue, p. 208. 
tSee Palmer, v. I. 



245 

ask, how was this done ? It was by the king's compel- 
ing all the Bishops within his realm, to take out connmis- 
sions from him. Henry VIII, and his delegates or lieu- 
tenants in the Episcopal office, it has been well said, 
stand, for the everlasting honor and consolation of all 
true churchmen, between you and the Apostles. The 
supremacy of the king was substituted for that of the 
Pope. This was a fundamental principle in the refor- 
mation in the Church of England. That Church was 
founded on it at first, and not on scripture authority 
or Divine institution, and there it remains settled to 
this day. One of the last statutes of the reign of Henry 
VIII, (37, Hen. VIII, chap. 17,) declares, that ^* Arch- 
bishops, Bishops, Arch-deacons, and other ecclesiasti- 
cal persons, have no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical 
but by, under, and from his royal majesty ; and that 
his majesty is the only supreme head of the Church of 
England and Ireland ; to whom, by holy scripture^ all 
authority and power is wholly given to hear and deter- 
mine all manner of causes ecclesiastical, and to correct 
all manner of heresies, errors, vices, and sins whatev- 
er, and to all such persons as his majesty shall appoint 
thereunto." Arch-bishop Cranmer on the death of 
Henry VIII, thought the exercise of his own Episcopal 
authority ended with the late king's life, and therefore, 
would not act as Arch-bishop, till he had a new co?nmis- 
sion from king Edward VI. This shows the source of 
Episcopal power, as understood by the fathers of the 
reformed Church of England. Through this *' disor- 
derly" channel, flows your succession. It comes down 
as Mr. Newman, one of the Oxford Tractators says, 

through a series of *' troubles and disorders,'' and in 
21* 



246 

Henry VIII, after having been entirely broken ofT^ 
starts from the act of parliannent, and the commission 
of the king 1^ 

Under Edward VI, the reformation, which had be- 
gun in the king's headship-power or supremacy, was 
carried on, by the same authority. The reformers of 
that day, ^^beUeved but two orders of 67/?^?*c//me7i, in 
holy scripture, viz: Bishops and Deacons; and conse- 
quently, that Bishops and Priests, were but different 
ranks, or degrees of the same order,'^ and ** ihcy gave 
the right hand of fellowship to foreign churches, and 
ministers thai had not been ordained by Bishops ; there 
being no dispute about rcordination, in order to any 
church preferment, till ihc latter end of queen Eliza- 
helKs reign. ''t 

Upon the accession of Mary to the throne, one of her 
first acts, was to shut up all protestant pulpits, and to 
forbid all preaching without special license. A thick 
storm soon gathered round the rcfortners. More than 
eight hundred retired to foreign parts, and among them 
were five Bishops, five Deans, four Arch-deacons, and 
above fifty doctors of divinity, Grindal, Jewel, Sandys, 
Reynolds, &c., &c., who became famous afterward in 
Elizabeth's reign. Popery triumphed. Lady Jane 
Grey, Arch-bishop Cranmer, and Bishops Ridley and 
Latimer, were executed. Cardinal Pole, who stands 
in your ** true line of succession," arrived, as the Pope's 
legate, commissioned to receive the kingdom of Eng- 
land, into the bosom of the Catholic Church, under the 
Pope, as their Supreme Pastor. Both houses of par- 

*See Newman on Romaniam, pp. 4J7, 418, 4*24, 130. 
tNcaPa Hist, of Puritans, v. I, pp. 12;3-21. 



247 

liament, presented, to the king and queen, their prayer 
for thenn to intercede with the Cardinal; which was 
done, and having enjoined it on them for penance, to 
repeal certain obnoxious laws, in the Pope's nanne, he 
granted them a full absolution, which they received on 
their knees, and then absolved the realm from all cen- 
sures. Strype says of Pole, ^*he wholly Italianized, 
and returned into England, endowed with a nature 
foreign and fierce, and was the very butcher and 

SCOURGE OF THE EnGLISH.'*=^ 

Bonner, Bishop of London, pursued the bloody work, 
urged on by king and queen ; and torrents flowed, till, 
by Elizabeth's accession to the throne, '' a new succes- 
sion was introduced,"' not by the authority of Heaven, 
but by the plenipotentiary authority of a woman, who, 
although prohibited by Heaven to rule in the Church at 
all, became ^' arbiter of truth and sovereign lord, as well 
of the lives and goods, as of the souls and consciences, 
of the people. So far, this absolute spiritual despotism, 
w^as in harmony with what the Church had long ad- 
mitted. The only innovation consisted, in transferring 
irresponsible church power, from spiritual, to secular, 
hands. The page of history presents no parallel in- 
stance of frightful and ingenious tyranny."! 

Elizabeth assumed supremacy in the Church, and 
prohibited ad interim^ all preaching. The parliament — 
Bishops voting against it — having put the power of ap- 
pointing Bishops into her hands, restored the suprema- 
cy to her, and annulled wiiat had been done by Mary. 
All the Bishops, except Dr. Kitchen of LandafF, refus- 

*Nears lustorj' of puritaiiS, p. 438. 
t Spiritual degpotism, p. 271, Am. ed. 



248 

ed the oath of supremacy, and retired from their sees, 
which remained for some time vacant, to see if any 
more of the fourteen would conform. Nothing w^ould 
move them. At length, after twelve months, Dr. Mat- 
thew Parker, who stands next to Pole, in your ** true 
line of succession,*' was consecrated Arch-bishop of 
Canterbury, at Lambeth, by some of the Bishops that 
had been deprived, in the late reign, for not one of the 
present Bishops would officiate.'** *' The whole chain 
of the present Anglican succession, hangs then, upon 
the validity of Arch-bishop Parker's consecration. 
Now, he was ordained by not a single prelate of the an- 
cient British line; but by four English Bishops, who 
had been consecrated in the reign of Edward the VI — 
whose times were full of uncanonical proceedings — 
who were afterwards deposed in the reign of Queen 
Mary, by that very Church on whose authority the 
succession depends — and had never been restored — 
that is to say. Barlow^ Scory, Coverdole, and Ilodg- 
kins*. Kitchen, the only remnant of the ancient British 
line, though appointed to do so, yet did not in fact, as- 
sist at the consecration of Parker."! Parker after- 
wards consecrated fourteen Bishops, the validity of 
whose ordination, like that of his own, was denied, and 
disputed, at the time, till eight years after, parliament 
found it necessary, to pass an actj confirming the va- 
lidity of his own consecration, and that of the Bishopsj 
ordained by him.§ The queen gave out her injunc 
tions, and appointed her lay visitors, with powder to de^ 
prive or suspend clergymen deemed unworthy, ani 

* Ncal's hislory of puritans, v. 1. p. 181. 
t Smyth's lectures, p. 211. 
t NeaPs history of puritans, v. I, p. 182. 
JSEliz., I.e. 



249 

the result was, that out of 9,400 parochial benefices, 243 
clergymen had quitted their livings, and among them 
were 14 Bishops (all) and 3 Bishops elect, &c. 

Such is your boasted succession in the ''true line" of 
the English church. We claim a truce forever, against 
all such baseless pretensions to an unbroken line of 
true Apostolic succession. The Roman, and the dis- 
senter, and every one else acquainted with the history 
of the times, and of the English Church, as given even 
by prelatical writers themselves, will smile at such 
statements as the following, given by you as oracular. 
''The church continued, until she had the power of 
throwing off the foreign yoke imposed upon her.*' The 
Church had nothing to do with it. It w^as king, queen 
and parliament did the whole of it, and '• to the present 
day (1835) the English establishment, says Mr. Tay- 
lor, a zealous Episcopalian too, has not relieved itself 
of the humiliations that resulted from the surrender, it 
had first made, of its independence to the civil magis- 
trate.'^^ Yet, directl}^, in the face of history, you say, 
'•this powder was exercised in the 16th century, and 
her Bishops, Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, who had 
the regular Aposto!ic succession, (broken, muddy, and 
through an apostate and idolatrous Church, as we have 
shown,) abandoned the errors introduced into her bo- 
som, and brought out from the rubbish of ages, the old 
British Church of St. Paul, the true Catholic Church, 
which ever since, like the polar star, has guided many 
a temptest-tost soul, to the haven of eternal rest. They 
did not leave the Church, or establish a new Church, 
they continued in it, and diffused throughout every part 

♦Spiritual despotism, p. '270. 



250 

of it, the life and light of the gospel of the Son of God." 
You mean, no doubt, the above named Bishops, and 
yet they took their commissions from the king, and 
swore allegiance to a sectlar, instead of a spiritual 
head! and were eventually deposed and executed, by 
the very authorities whom they renounced ! ** But,'* 
you continue, *^ those who clung to the Bishop of 
Rome, set up another Church — it is true, havmg an 
Apostolic ministry, but in a state of schism. From the 
former Church, we received our ministry.'' This is 
such perfectly new information — such wonderful light 
thrown upon the history of the En!::lish Church, that I 
presume all your inquisitive read<;rs, will be just as 
anxious as I am, to be referred to your authorities. 

In my next letter, I shall notice the origin and his- 
tory of the Anglo-American succession. In the mean 
time, I subjoin the following extract from a recent pub- 
lication in Scotland,* to show, that others entertain 
like fears with myself, and h«>w utterly absurd is the 
pretension to Apostolic succession, derived through the 
Scottish channel : 

**If Popery be destined lo assume for a season, its 
old ascendency, it will be found that the Episcopalian 
controversy will swell mightily into importance, during 
at least the earlier stages of iis rise. It is more than 
probable that on this old battle field, will the war of 
outposts in the great struggle, have to be carried on." 

*'It is a curious and important fact, that, for a period 
of nearly forty years — from the appointment of the 
Ihlchan Bishops, in 1572, until after the meeting of the 
.Angelical General Assembly, in 1010 — the rite of or- 

* The Witness, of April 27, 1S4-2, Edinbiirgh. 



251 

dinalion, as practiced both in ihe English Church, and 
among our Scottish Episcopalians of later times, had 
no existence in Scotland. Our Bishops, tried by the 
only standard recognized as legitimate now, were all 
iinordained Bishops. In other words, they wx^re not 
Bishops — not ecclesiastics even. The old Popish line 
had been suffered to die out in Scotland — the last of 
the number, James Beaton, Arch-bishop of Glasgow, 
had closed a long and useless life, the very year in 
which James had ascended the throne of England ; 
and no Scotch Bishop of the Reformed faith, seems to 
have so much as suspected that the race passing into 
extinction, were in the possession of any virtue which 
they could have communicated to their successors. As 
in the case of cattle infected by cow pox, ere the dis- 
covery of vaccination, no heed had been taken to the 
valuable mailer which they had carried about w^ith 
them — it was suffered to dry up accordingly ; and so 
in 1610, seven years after the accession of James, 
when, thiough the medium of the court, the high church 
notion had insinuated itself into the kingdom, it was 
found necessary to export the ichor from England.'' 
^4t was once held that the toad, 

" All loiithsome though it be, and venomous, 
Did bear a precious jewel in its liead." 

And certainly, had the jewel been there, the belief 
would have insured its discovery. But what gem-hun- 
ter now thinks of mining into toads' heads in quest of 
jewels? Wherever else one may dig for them, no one 
ever thinks of digging for them there. It so happen- 
ed, as we have shown, that in the days of our earlier 
Episcopalians, there prevailed a belief regarding Pope- 



252 

ry, analogous to our modern belief regarding toads. 
Protestantism in Scotland never once dreamed that 
aught so precious as the ^Apostolic succession/ could 
be borrowed from the beast. It knew much of the ve- 
nom inherent in it; but it was quite unaware of the 
gem — nay, it went farther, it decided, like our modern 
naturalists, in the case of the toad, that there was no 
gem. It acted as if there was none — it asserted in the 
Confession of its Faith, that there was none ; and 
Episcopacy, by way of being particularly orthodox, re- 
peated the assertion — nay, aflirmcd in the very words 
of Knox, that * hncal descent,' however certain it may 
be, is no mark of the * trew kirk.' * We affirm,' says 
the Confession of Faith, by which, for nearly half a 
century, our Bishops professed to hold, * we affirm that 
the notes, signs, and assumed tokens, whereby the 
immaculate spouse of Christ Jesus is known from the 
horrible harlot, tlic kirk malignant, are neither antiqui- 
lie, title usurped, lineal descent, ])lace appointed, nor 
multitude of men approving an error.' " 






LETTER XV. 
anglo-american succession, 

Rev. and dear sir: 

I shall delay to examine but one more broken link, 
in your true line of Apostolic succession, and that is, 
the ^nglo- American Episcopal Church, *^ At the period 
of our civil revolution," you say, ^' the Episcopal 
Church in the colonies, was under the care of the 
Bishop of London. An ecclesiastical revolution also 
took place, and the Church renounced all foreign juris- 
diction,'' Your Episcopal Churches, both in England 
and America, it would seem, always follow in the wake 
of civil and political revolutions. Strange sort of Head- 
ship power must that be, which is so easily and inva- 
riably disturbed by a political revolution. In your 
Churches, by your own confession, Christ's transferred 
power has been made subordinate to kings and queens 
and revolutions! We are happily exempt from such 
•Catastrophes, knowing no supreme powder in our Chur- 
ches, but that of Jesus Christ now in Heaven, our sole 
supreme Head and Lawgiver. He must be blind in- 
deed, who reads Bishop White's memoirs of the Epis- 
copal Church of the United States, and does not see 
how formidable were the embarrassments with which 
the American Episcopal Church had to contend — ^all 
growing out of the Episcopal headship power. 
22 



254 

You speak of it as a matter of course, '* that the 
Church in America" — I understand you as speaking 
only of the Episcopal Church, for il is not the fact in 
reference to Presbyterian and other Churches, and I 
enter my protest against your use of such language, as 
though the Episcopal was all *' the Church in Ameri- 
ca," which — " was left without a Bishop." You ad- 
mit, that the Episcopal Church was left *' without the 
Apostolic succession." just as Queen Bess's Church 
had been, by the revolution in her day. " But," you 
say, '^ God's promise was still recorded — the Church of 
Christ could not be destroyed," and the proof of it, you 
cite in the Episcopal ordination of certain worthy di- 
vines of these United States. Why, sir, God's promise 
would not have failed, nor his Church have been de- 
stroyed, if neither these gentlemen, nor any other, had 
ever been ordained *' Episcopal Bishops." I notice 
this, merely to show, how incidentally you betray the 
opinions you clierish, that none but churches having 
Episcopally ordained ministers, are a part of the true 
church of Christ. 

You inform us, that ^* the Rev. Samuel Seabury, an 
eloquent defender of the faith, early received the 
Apostolic office from the church in Scotland — and 
that eminent servant of Christ, William White, then a 
Presbyter in Pennsylvania, and Samuel Provoost, a 
Presbyter of Nev/ York, repaired to the mother church 
in England, and received from the hands of her Bishops, 
the Apostolic succession, (such as it was, I add,) — and 
with James Madison, of Virginia, who also received 
the Apostolic office from the English Church, have 
continued it down through the different Bishops, since 



255 

consecrated to that office — and xow, throughout the 
length and breadth of the land, the Gospel of Christ is 
proclaimed through the Church, and by an Apostolic 

MIxVISTRY." 

I say nothing of the spirit which such hinguage 
breathes. I am no judge of the heart, and have tjiere- 
forc carefully and conscientiously guarded against any 
impeachment of your motives, or the use of a single 
epithet that would convict me of unkind and olfensive 
personalities, much less, of '^railing," or a persecuting 
spirit. I have, indeed, addressed you personally, and 
used great plainness of speech in analyzing your argu- 
ment, and in trying the strength of your logic. 

This, i have been induced to do, not as a criticism 
of your sermon, but because it has afforded a suitable 
occasion for the examination of the claims of Episcopa- 
I cy. I perceived that you had endeavored to work in- 
I to your discourse, in a popular form, the general range 
|. of argument, in the discussions which have been had 
^ on this subject, and therefore, in addressing you per- 
sonally, I have meant not to single you out as an indi- 
vidual, but to regard you as the representative of Epis- 
copacy. 

I mean not to reproach therefore, but I must say, 
I that the language, which you, in common with prelali- 
cal writers, hold about your Apostolical succession, 
< and the manner in which you have presented the sub- 
j ject, whatever proof to the contrary may have been 
I given to you, is to me, and to many of my brethren, 
both clerical and lay, as " unkind and offensive'' as if 
I you had openly slandered us and called us outright, 
' aBOSS iMPOJSTORS. The dagger dipped in oil, is not 



256 

less the dagger still. I have tried to understand it as 
applying only to your own Episcopal ministry, but 
cannot perceive that such an exclusive reference or 
particular explanation will at all comport with your 
argument or language. If your suspicions or fears of 
'^ gross impostors," implied in your hypothesis referred 
to, are meant to be confined to your own sect, be it so. 
Certainly there is ground for them, w^hen there are those 
among you, calling themselves Apostles. We have no 
such pretenders, and are therefore, happy to be exempt 
from them, and to know, that we are not the object of 
them. If this bo not the true meaning, but you intended 
to Include your ministers with those of other denomina- 
tions, it does not help you. For, Episcopal ordination and 
Apostolic succession — the things you sa}^ you have — 
are the very things from the want of which by others, 
you argue and atlirm that they are gross impostors. 
Possibly you may have had Icars and suspicions, that in 
asserting the high claims you did, you, and those with 
you, vv'ho insist upon being Apostles of Jesus Christ, in 
regular linear succession, endowed with Christ's head- 
ship power, subjected yourselves to the charge of be- 
ing reputed ^^ gross impostors,*' if you failed Xo prove 
by sound conclusive argument, the positions you advan- 
ced. If this be the fact, I greatly respect your fears, 
and only regret that you should have ventured to give 
your argument till you had so conclusively settled the 
Apostolic character of your office, that your own mind 
should have been entirely relieved, from them and from 
the suspicions they are so apt to engender. 

You certainly are not able to make out your case, so 
plainly, and to prove your Apostolic succession so con- 



267 

clusively as to be entitled to appropriate, to your Episco- 
pal societies, the appellation of the church, as though 
thei) were exclusively such in these United States. 

Bishop Seabury's ordination, coming through the 
Scotch line, has been pronounced invalid. It is essen- 
tial to a valid ordination, according to the sacramental 
views you advocate, ihat it should have been validly 
received and delivered. Where there has been doubt 
on the subject, it has been judged that ^* they ought 
certainly to be conferred again. ''"^ This principle you 
yourself recognized, and acted on, when you disowned 
your Presbyterian baptism, and was Episcopally re- 
baptized, ^' The divine grace or commission is believed 
to be only given perfectly, to those lawfully ordain- 
ed."! I will not state the different departures from 
the canons, in matters of form, which invalidate ordin- 
ation ; but merely remark — that that ordination has 
been judged invalid, where the person ordained Bishop, 
had not been previously ordained a Deacon and a 
Priest; that is, ordination per saltum does not convey 
the grace — and that the want of Episcopal baptism also 
is an essential defect. "f 

Other things have been judged also to invalidate 
Episcopal consecration, which I need not notice. 

Dr. Campbell§ says, that the ordination of our pre- 
sent Scotch Episcopal clergy is solely /rom Presbyters, 
Men, who, according to your Episcopal doctrine of 
Apostolic succession, had a part only of the ministerial 
powers, and no right of transmitting orders to others.^ 

*Palraer, I, 435. 

tBingham, b. H, c. 16, s. 12 

tSee Dr. Field as quoted in Smyth's Lectures, p, 116. 

§See Bingliam, vol. XI, p. 493. 

ULcct, on Eccle3. Hist., XI, p. 202. 

22* 



258 

King James nominated thirteen Bishops, to the thirteen 
Scotch bishoprics, which he had himself previously 
abolished. Mr. Spotswood, Arch-bishop of Glasgow, 
Mr. Lamb, Bishop of Brechen, and Mr. Hamilton, 
Bishop of Galloway, he sent to England, and issued a 
commission, under the great seal of the Bishops of 
London, Ely, Bath, Wells, and Rochester, requiring 
them to proceed to the consecration of the above men- 
tioned persons as Bishops, according to the English or- 
dinal. 

The Bis!iop of Ely, viz : JlndrewSy objected, alledg- 
ing their previous consecration as Priests to be neces- 
sary. A majority, however, judged Presbyterian or- 
dination valid, and they were consecrated, A. D. 1610, 
and thus Episcopacy usurped supremacy over the Kirk 
of Scotland,^ and the race of JScolch Bishops started, 
whose canonical qualifications have always been doubt- 
ed, by high churchmen. 

** The troubles of Charles I, came on. Episcopacy 
sank, and ere its resuscitation in IGOO, ail the old 
Bishops had died out, with the exception of Sydserf, 
Bishop of Galloway. Now, one Bishop lacks power, it 
would seem, to communicate the Apostolic virtue. To 
do the thing unexceptionably, three are required,; and* 
fewer than two cannot transmit it all. It is a law of 
the electric Huid, that if a single Ley den jar be well 
charged, it yields a smart shock. Double the number 
of jars, and connect them, and the shock is doubled. 
Every additional jar gives additional strength to the 
shock, until at length, by the sheer force of numbers, 
we construct a battery powerful enough to explode 

*A'eaI*3 Hist, of Puritans, vol. H, p. lOS 



259 

gunpowder, or to light tapers tipped with sulphur. But 
the Apostolic fluid is regulated by other laws. A sin- 
gle jar, let it be charged as it may, gives no shock what- 
ever; set beside it a second jar, and ihere ensues what 
may be regarded a shock incases of dire necessity, but 
not otherwise. Add yet a third, and the battery is 
complete. The fluid glances nimbly along, and ignites 
tapers at the noon day altar. Of course, the single 
surviving Scolcli Bishop, even had his predecessors 
been baptized, and had they been admitted regularly 
into Episcopalian orders, could demonstrably on these 
principles do nothing — the degree of virtue which he 
himself possessed he could not communicate ; and so, 
four Scotchmen, like the three on a former occasion, 
were sent up to England, to be ordained. In the case 
of the electric telegraph, the fluid can be transmitted 
by a wire — in the case of the cow pox infection, the 
ichor can be conveyed between two bits of glass — the 
gas engendered in one locality may be carried through 
a pipe many miles in length, and consumed at another; 
but the vital gas — ichor — fluid of Episcopacy, has, it 
would seem, no such transmissive quality — it can be 
carried only by the living person — an unlucky pecu- 
liarity which leads occasionally, it would seem, to ir- 
regularities of a very fatal kind. But to these, sur- 
rounded as we are by deadly weapons of a more pal- 
pable class, we shall, at present, lack space to refer. 
The four Scotch ecclesiastics sent up for ordination, 
were the infamous Sharpe, Leighton, an eminently ex- 
cellent, but mistaken and facile man, and two others 
of less note, Fairfoul and Hamilton. Leighton and 
Sharpj like the former Bishops, possessed only Presby- 



260 

terian orders; light had been gradually strengthening, 
however, among the guardians of Episcopacy in Eng- 
land, the objection, overruled before, was sustained 
now, and they had both to submit to be prelatically in- 
troduced into orders, ere their introduction as Bishops 
could take place. But the light, though strengthening, 
was not yet sufficiently strong, and the old fatal flaw 
which had marred the former ordination, was suffered 
to impart the infection of nullity to this ordination also. 
Sharpe and Leighton had received only Presbyterial 
baptism, z. e., they had never been baptized; regarding 
one of the others, Fairfoul, no man could say whether 
he had been baptized or no; and though the fourth had 
been baptized prelatically, it was only through the old 
Scotch prelates that he had been so — men who had 
never been baptized themselves. None of the four jars 
sent up to be charged on this occasion had been pre- 
viously prepared — they lacked the tin coaling, if we 
may so speak, and of course, could not retain the fluid. 
^•But had all the four been hnpthcd, and that by the 
Pope himself, and even had English Episcopacy been 
charged with the Apostolic virtue, which it professed 
to bestow upon them — and that it did not possess this 
virtue, can be very satisfactorily shown — there awaited 
on Scottish prelacy, a disaster which would itself have 
thrown no inconsiderable shade of doubt upon its 
claims, had there been no other. Scottish history, as 
has been often remarked, has had a sad trick of losing 
its records. It lost them by wagon-loads in the days 
of Edward I; it lost a whole ship cargo of them in the 
times of Charles II; and recently, it lost some of its more 
important ecclesiastical documents by the fire which 



261 

destroyed both houses of parliament. Miserable as the 
genealogy would have been which would have connec- 
ted them with Sharpe and Fairfoul — that genealogy is 
lost. They possess no means of serving themselves 
heir to even the unhaptized dignitaries of the Restora- 
tion. In 'short, so miserable is their plight^ that had 
the Apostolic succession been a ten pound freehold, and 
had it been in the undisputed possession of the worship- 
ful James Sharpe, they would be unable to make good 
their pretensions to it in a court of law. They lack 
their certificates of legitimacy, and no jury could in 
conscience find their claim proven without ihem.""^ 

This doubt. Bishop White tells us was so far enter- 
tained as to have created distrust concerning the valid- 
ity of Bishop Seabury's ordination, and to have direct- 
ed himself and others to England, for the Episcopal 
consecration, though his own private views were dis- 
tinctly expressed, that there were but two orders of 
the ministry resolved by many christians into one; and 
that Presbyterian ordination would have been valid, 
had they failed to get Episcopal ordination from Eng- 
land, for he urged that the superintendent of the dis- 
trict or permanent moderator, should have power to 
ADMIT TO THE MixNisTiiY. The Organization Bishop 
White proposed for the churches, which, by the Amer- 
ican Revolution had been severed from the Epis- 
copal Church of England, was, in all essential respects, 
Presbyterian. He admitted of the propriety of at- 
tempting to obtain the succession from England, but 
insisted that they could go on without it, and after- 
wards, when the Episcopate should be obtained, cor- 

*The Witness, April 27, 1S42, EdinburgM. 



262 

rect any imperfections in the system, and in the inter- 
mediate ordinations without acknowledging their 

NULLITY.^ 

A letter from the Rev. A. C. Jarvis, in the name of 
the clergy of Connecticut, addressed to "Mr. White, 
dated Woodbury, March 25, 1783," objects to his 
views and enters into an argument and remonstrance 
against them.''t 

The Episcopal consecration was obtained, as you 
say from England, by Bishops White, Madison, and 
Provoost — but I ask }ioii\ under what limitations, and 
from what source? These things you have not advert- 
ed to, but would fain have us believe, ** that the Apos- 
tolic succession" has flowed down, uninterruptedly, 
from Paul, through the old British Churches, the pre- 
sent established Churcli of England, and the triumvir- 
ate above named. Were you not aware, of the utter 
destitution of the union of the Episcopal churches in 
this country, consequent on the American revolution? 
Of the part which Bishop White took, in his efforts, 
*• to procure a union of all the Episcopal churches in 
the United States, into one body or church only?"]: and 
of the fact, that it was by means of human wisdom, they 
were consolidated, having, as Dr. Hawks fully sets 
forth, come together as independent churches, duly or- 
ganized, and so considered each other ?§ 

The organization of the present protestant Episcopal 
church of these United States, and flie introduction of 

♦The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the U. S., considered and published by 
Bishop White, 1782. 

tSec While's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U. S. A., pp. 

Xl^r, \A ilson's Mem, p, 07, 

§Conslit. of Prot. Epi*. Ch. in Ch. Record. 



263 

the Episcopate, were questions that led to much con- 
troversy, both in Great Britain and America. Episco- 
pal ordination was not easily obtained — ''the Aposto- 
lic succession" of the Engh'sh Church itself, having, for 
its fountain, the king's supremacy. Political prejudices, 
and other considerations, operated, and no Bishop of 
England, dared to lay his hands on the American di- 
vines, till king George and his parliament gave them 
power and authority to do so. I give you in a note 
below, the law enacted specially empowering {he Eng- 
lish Arch-bishops to extend the Episcopate, in order to 
show, from what source, and by what authority, Bish- 
ops VVhite, Madison, and Provoost obtained their pow- 
er, which you claim yourself to exercise as their regu- 
lar lineal successor.^' 

There are several things in this law deserving atten- 

*An Jet to empower the Arch-hislup of Canterhury, or the Arch- bishop rf York, for 
the time being, to co?isecrale to the ojjice of a Bishop, persons being- subjects or citi- 
zens of countries out of his Majesty's dominions. 

Whereas, by the laws of this realm, no person can be consecrated to the office of 
B Bishop, vvitliout the king's license for his election to that office, and the royal 
mandate under the great seal for liis confirmation and consecration : And whereas, 
every person wJio s^hjilj he consecrulcd to the said office, is refjuircd to take the oaths 
of allegiance and supieaiacy, and also ihc oalii of due ohcdicnce to the Arch-bishop •, 
and whereas, tiicrc are divers persons, snbjec's, or citizens of countries out cf his 
Majesty's dominions, inhabiting and residing; within thesaid countries, who profess 
the public worship of Alniiglity God, according to the princii»Ies of ilie Ciiurch of 
England, and who, in order to provide a regular succession of ministers for the 
service of their Ciiurch, are desirous of having certain of the su!>jecls or citizens of 
those countries coi sjcrated iJishops, according to the form of consecration in the 
Church of England : 

Be it enacted by the King's most excellent Mnjesty, and by and with the advice 
and consent of llie Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present 
Parliament assembled, and hy the authority of the same: that from and after the 
passing of this act, it shall and inay be lawlul to and lor the Arch-bishop of Can- 
terbury, or the Arcii-bisl'.op of York, for the time being, together with such other 
Bishops as tliey shall call to their assistance, to consecrate persons being subjects or 
citizens of countries out of liis Majesty's dominions, Bishops for the purposes 
aforesaid, without ihe King's license for tlieir election, or the royal mandate under 
the great seal, for their conlirmation and consecration, and without requiring them 
to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, aud the oath of due obedience to the 
Arch-Bishop for the time being: Provided, always. That no person shall be conse- 
crated Bishop, in the manner herein provided, until the Arch-bisliop of Canterbury 
or the Arch-bishop of York, for the time beins, shall have first applied for and ob- 
tained HIS 3Iajest\'s License, by warrjtnt under his royal signet and sign manual, 
authorizing and empowering him to perform, such consecration, and expressing the 
name or natiies of the persons so to be consecrated; nor until the said Arch-bishop 
has been fully ascertained of the sufficiency in good learning, of the soundness of 
their faith and of the purity of their manners : Provided also, and it is hereby de- 



264 

tion. It provides for and determines, the Anglo-Ameri- 
can Episcopal succession. It forms the fountain of 
your sacerdotal powers. Before they could be obtain- 
ed, the king and parliament of Great Britain had to le- 
gislate on the subject. What a beautiful specimen, 
and illustration, is this, of the plenitude of Christ's 
Headship power, which you claim to have been trans- 
ferred to the Apostles, and to your *^ Apostolic Bi- 
shops,"' their successors, for the government of the 
Church ! To the king and parliament of Great Britain 
are you as much indebted for all your Episcopal pow- 
ers, as arc the English Bishops themselves. The law, 
under which you hold your Apostolic commission, 
carefully and particularly limits the exercise of your 
Episcopal powers. When Christ commissioned His 
Apostles, it was, ** go into all tiik world, and preach 
the gospel to every creature,'' JMat.y viii, 15. But 
when the act of king George the 3d and his parliament, 
authorized the Arch-bishops of Canterbury and York to 
commission your first American ''Episcopal Bishops,'' 
it explicity excluded them from the exercise of their 
functions, in a very large part of the world — through- 
out the immensely extended dominions of Great Britain. 
** JVo person or persons consecrated to the office of a 
Bishop in the manner aforesaid, nor any pejson or per- 
sons^DERivLXG TiiEiR CONSECRATION from or uudcr any 

clarcd, ihRt 7io person or persons consecrated to the office of a Bishop In tlie manner 
n.foresaid, nor any person or persons derivino their coNSErR ation from or un- 
der any Bishop so covskcrated, nor any prrson or persons admitted to ihc order of 
deacon or priest by any J5is!iop or Bisliops so consecrated, or by the successor or 
SUCCESSORS of any Bisliop or Bishops so consecrated, shall he thereby enabled to 
exercise his or their respective oflice or offices within his Majesty's dominions: 
Provided ahcays, and he it further enacte 1, that a certificate of such consecration 
shall be ^iven under the hand of the Arcli-bishop wlio consecrates, containing the 
name of the person so consecrated, with the addition as well of the country wliere- 
of he is a subject or citizen, as of the church in which he is appointed Bisliop, and 
tlie further description of his not having taken the said oaths, being CJKcmpied £rom 
the obligation of so doing by virtue of this act. 



205 

Bishops so consecrated, nor any person or persons ad- 
mitted to the order of a deacon or priest by any 
Bishop or Bishops so consecrated, or by the succes- 
sor OR SUCCESSORS OF ANY BiSHOP OR BiSHOPS SO 

consecrated, shall be thereby enabled to exercise 
their office or offices within his Majesty's domin- 
ions." 

Under this law, the American ^^ Episcopal Bishops'" 
accepted ordination. They are bound, in good faith, 
to abide by the terms of the covenant, with the British 
government, implied in their acceptance of ordination, 
through the hands of the king's authorized agent, his 
grace, the Arch-bishop of Canterbury ; so that, whene- 
ver you cross our beautiful river, to officiate as a min- 
ister of the Gospel, you should, in good conscience, 
leave your Episcopal robes and office, behind you, and 
appear there, as you really are, agreeably to the laws 
of Great Britain, any where within her dominion, a 
mere layman. Unless you can show, that the law, un- 
der which you, as Bishop White's successor, hold your 
commission, has been modified, or that some new law 
has since been passed, you should, consistently with 
the implied covenant, refuse to exercise your Episco- 
pal or priestly functions, in Canada. 

And further, should it ever happen, so disastrously 
as it once did, which, I pray the good Providence of 
God may prevent, in the event of a war with Great 
Britain, that our city should come again, though but for 
a time, under her dominion, the obligations of the im- 
plied covenant, through which you derive the '* Apos- 
tolic succession," would silence you at once, and de- 

23 



266 

grade you to the level of ihe laity, unless the authori- 
ties, for the time beihg. should grant you a dispensation. 

American ''Episcopal Bishops," assuredly, are the 
very last persons, that should boast of antiquity, and 
Apostolic succession, and Divine right, if they would 
have any regard for modesty. Before 1784, there was 
no such thing as an *• Episcopal Bishop," in the coun- 
try. That year, Bishop Seabury was consecrated by 
the nonjuring Bishops of Scotland. It was not till 
1787, that the constitutional compact of the Episcopal 
Churches was ratified, the first general convention, 
preparatory to an independent organization, having 
been held in Philadelphia, two years before, nor till 
August 8, 1789, when it was finally adopted. Bish- 
ops White and Provoost were consecrated in 1787, 
but they could not consecrate others to the Episcopjil 
oflice, until there were three regular Bishops, constitu- 
ted such, by receiving their ordination from the hands 
of English Bishops.* 

The Methodist Church had the start of yours, by six 
years, and the Presbyterians, nearly a century. Pro- 
perly speaking, the Protestant Episcopal ChuVch of the 
United States, did not exist, w^ith full power to propa- 
gate itself, before 1790, when Bishop Madison, of Vir- 
ginia, was consecrated to the Episcopal oflice, by the 
Arch-bishop of Canterbury. Knowing these facts, 
therefore, we certainly are not disposed to entertain 
any very great reverence for the American Episco- 
pate, beyond what the personal worth of the Bishops, 
as brethren, may entitle them to. 
Nor can we give you credit, for what, in the prq^ 

* See W^hite's JMemoirs, &c., pp. 27, 28. Note, pp. 115-124. 



267 

face of your second edition, you applaud yourself, when 
you say, *-I also feci gratified on account of the proof, 
which has been given, that the manner in which the 
subject is presented, was not considered unkind or 
oflfensive. For while I shall always feel bound to 
contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the 
Saints, I trust no expression shall escape from me, at 
w^ar with those feelings, which the Gospel of our bles- 
sed Lord directs us to cherish, even to those who have 
erred and departed from his own institution — the 
Church." Neither you may have intended or suspec- 
ted it, nor those who have lauded you for it ; but you 
could not well have used more oflensive language. 
You have assumed your American Episcopal Church 
to be the only true church of Jesus Christ in these Uni- 
ted States, THE Church! and you have denied to other 
churches, all right and title to be thought a part of 
Christ's Church, — have in fact declared, that they have 
departed from Christ's institution — the Church — virtu- 
ally proclaimed us to be in error and apostate, and yet 
very obligingly tell us, that you have used no unkind 
and offensive language — nor any words calculated to 
irritate or wound. Verily this is the unkindest cut of 
all. You must have very strange ideas of our sensi- 
tiveness, and the import of your own language, thus to 
speak, after all that you have said about the Episcopal 
Church being ^* the ark of safety,'' about your having 
the true line of Apostolic succession — about your being 
\ THE Church, and other things equally exclusive in their 
spirit and bearing, and that too, when you have so Ht- 
tle to show, on the score of your Apostolic succession, 



268 

or the antiquity and purely spiritual origin of your 
church. 

You have had among yourselves, doubts and dis- 
putes about the validity of the consecration of some of 
your Bishops, and therefore, if not out of deference to 
the sentiments of others, on the vexed and unconfirm- 
ed question of your '^ Apostolic succession/' it behooves 
you to be a little more modest in asserting your claims. 
You certainly must be aware, that the validity of the 
ordination, both of Bishop Hobart and of Bishop Gris- 
wold, was soon after seriously and publicly questioned, 
for reasons then declared, and that the subject was 
made a matter of controversy both in newspapers and 
pamphlets, not by Presbyterians, but by Episcopali- 
ans.* 

** On this doctrine, therefore," to use the language 
of Mr. Smyth, whose learned and elaborate work on 
the Apostolical succession, I would recommend to your 
careful perusal, ** the claim of the American Episcopal 
Church to an unbroken and uninvalidated succession, 
must be allowed to be very weak indeed. The chain, 
if ever it extended across the Atlantic, before 1787, was 
assuredly broken, when even the semblance of a previ- 
ous union was shivered by the storm of the revolution, 
and, when the Episcopal Churches found themselves 
without union, without a head, and without any acces- 
sible source of Episcopal grace. And when to this 
fearful break in their boasted line, we add the other in- 
validating defects in the composition of the links them- 
selves, there is surely enough to exclude all boasting, 

* See Bishop While's Mem. Prot. Ep. Church, p. 215. AUo, a pamphlet cniiiled, 
Serious Thoughts on a late adminisiration of Episcopal orders, in N. Y., March, 
1812, p. 80. 



269 

on the part of the American prelacy, on the ground of 
any certain and unbroken succession of duly consecra- 
ted prelates."*' 

We certainly are not at all prepared to hear such 
language as the following, or to attribute it — as we will 
not, to a design to insult us — to any thing else, than to 
the overweening influence of a blind attachment to your 
own church. '' Happy people then are we, to have 
this ministry. For amidst all the agitations of the 
christian world, the Church has stood firm and decided, 
and not one of her Bishops has been carried away from 
the simplicity of the faith, as it is in Christ." I was 
utterly amazed at such a declaration, as it appeared in 
the first edition of your sermon, having learned the fol- 
lowing facts in relation to the spiritual dignitaries of 
the Church of England, so very like a wide departure 
from *'the simplicity of the faith, as it is in Christ." 

**In the Church of England, we have two Arch-bi- 
shops. The name is as anti-christian as the thing. 
What are the duties of the office, it is difficult to ascer- 
tain. Those sustaining it, have no functions distinct 
from the Bishops, nor does it appear that they have 
any jurisdiction over them. They do not appoint 
them — the king does, and they cannot remove them. 
They cannot, without the king's concurrence, call them 
together in convocation.! Their sole use, therefore, 
seems to be, to rear their mitred fronts in courts and 
Parliaments ; to vote in the train of ministers ; to rule 
their wide and opulent dominions, count their enor- 

* Smyth's Lectures, p. 220. 

t This ecclpsiastical Parliament, formerly the organ through which "the Supreme 
Head of the Chuich made known His will on all points of doctrine, discipline, wor- 
ship, &c., has still a legal capacity of existence, but has not been allowed to meet 
tor any purpose, except to preserve ancient forms, since May. 1717. 

23* 



270 

mous revenues, and dispose of good livings to sons, 
brothers, nephews, cousins, relations, and dependants, 
without end, as their own interest, or the interest of 
ministers, reserved by special agreement, may dic- 
tate."* *^The Arch-bishops have their princely reti- 
nue, domestic chaplains, officers for temporalities, their 
spiritual officers, vicar general, guardian of the spiritu- 
alities, dean of the arches, with all their under officers 
and attendants. Then they have their court of Facul- 
ties, court of audience, prerogative court, delegates. 
The Bishops have their full share of pomp ; they, too, 
have their trains, domestic chaplains, officers and 
courts. To the Arch-bishops belong, 
26 chancellors and their attendants, 
24 registers, with their clerks, 
124 gentlemen apparitors, 
20 inferior apparitors. 

Under the Bishops there are 60 Arch-deacons; and 
these have 60 courts, to which belong 
Commissaries, 60 registrars, 

Officials, 120 proctors, 

Surrogates, 200 apparitors, 

so that, the number belonging to Arch-Bishops, Bishops, 
Arch-deacons, and their courts and offices, are judged 
to be no less than ten thousand persons— all of them, 
whether sacred or secular, supported by the country 
for the sole purpose of increasing the splendor and aug- 
menting the revenues of what are called '' the dignified 

clergy, ^^ 

It is difficult to ascertain the amount of the revenues 
of my lords the Bishops, arising from rent of glebes, 

* Book of Dcnonio p. 395. 



271 

tithes or church rates, surplice fees, marriage licenses, 
consecration of churches and burial grounds, and ex- 
penses arising from processes in ecclesiastical courts. 
Upon a fair assumption, which applies accurately to 
every thing else, continues the author,* from which I 
quote the above facts, *' the lists of prelatical incomes 
will stand thus: 

Arch-bishop of Canterbury, £56,650 a year. 

York, 32,200 

Bishop of Durham, 36,420 

*• London, 70,000 

'' Winchester 57,779 

Ely, 42,698 

Salisbury, 27,700 

The rest on an average, 10,000; that is 

from more than 290,000 dollars, to 44,444, annually. 
All this, it may be said, is the result of alliance with 
the state. True; but certainly the state has ** carried 
away'^ the Bishops very far **from the simplicity of 
the faith as it is in Christ'' — not to mention the lives 
of some which were wholly at war with the precepts 
and spirit of the gospel. It is notorious that a Bishop's 
office has been as truly the object of ambitious pursuit, 
and as systematically educated for, and sought from 
the crown, irrespective of spiritual qualifications, as 
any civil office within its gift. The reproach of Cow- 
per is founded on truth, and is the very antipodes of 
your panegyric: 

"The parson knows enough, who knowsa dukel 

Egregious purpose ! worthily begun 

In barbarous prostitution of your son , 

Press 'd on hie part by raeons that would di^racc 

*BoQk of Denom., p. 410. 



272 

A scrivener's desk, or footrann out of place, 

And ending, if at last its end be gained, 

In sacrilege, in God's own house profan'd. 

It may succeed ; and if hid sins should call 

For more than common punishment, it shall ; 

The wretch shall rise, and he the thing on earth 

Least qualified in honor, learning, worth, 

To occupy a sacred, awful post. 

In which the best and worihlest tremble most ; 

The royal letters arc a thing of course, 

A king, that would, might recommend his horse; 

And deans no doubt, and chapters, with one voice, 

As bound in duty, would confirm his choice. 

Behold your Bishop : well he plays his part. 

Christian in name, and infidel in heart, 

Ghostly in office, earthly in his plan, 

A slave at court, elsewhere a lady'a man. 

Dumb as a senator, and as a priest, 

A piece of mere church furniture at best: 

To live eslrangc<l from God his total scope, 

And his end sure, wit! out one glimpse of hope." 

In your second edition, I perceive that you have 
quahfied your remark, and, in a note, explained it to 
have reference, not to the personal and christian cha- 
racter of the Bishops, but only ** with reference to the 
orders and succession in the ministry.'' It is hard, even 
with the explanation, to understand your meaning; but 
the remark makes this impression on my mind — and I 
can see no other which you designed it to make — that, 
on this grand essential point of Episcopal belief, there 
never was a Bishop in your Church, who did not main- 
tain the distinction of the three orders^ viz: Bishops, 
Priests and Deacons, and the Apostolic succession. 
You have identified your American Episcopal with the 
Anglican Church, and I am, therefore, led ta suppose, 
that you mean the remark to be understood of both. 
If so, then I refer you to Cranmer, of w^hom Bishop 
Mcllvane says, " that in the question what is the doc- 
trine of the articles and homilies of the AngUcan 



273 

Church, one plain lestimony — is worth all that could 
be collected from the writings of all the non-jurors of 
1G88/'^ He affirms, that Bishops and Presbyters w^ere 
both one office. Bishop Andrews says, ** though Epis- 
copal governmeni be of divine institution, yet it is not 
so absolutely necessary, as that there can be no Churchy 
nor sacraments, nor salvation, without it. He is blind 
that sees not many Churches flourishing without it." 
Bishops Hoadley and Sherlock and Warburton and 
Heber, utterly repudiated the high Church position \ou 
maintain, that a non-Episcopal government and a des- 
titution of three orders in the ministry, unchurch 
other denominations. So also did Arch-bishops Whit- 
gift, Tillotson. Bramhall, Wake, Usher, &c. Bishop 
Burnet says explicitly, '' this ransacking of records 
about a succession of orders, though it adds much to 
the lustre and beauty of the church, yet is not a thing 
incumbent on every body to look into, nor indeed, pos- 
sible for any to be satisfied about; for a great many 
ages, all those instruments are lost ; so that how ordi- 
nations were made in the primitive church, we cannot 
certainly know ; it is a piece of history, and very hard 
to be perfectly known. Therefore it cannot be a fit 
study for any, much less for one that has not niuch 
leisure. The condition of christians were very hard, 
if private persons must certainly know how all minis- 
ters have been ordained since the Apostles' days ; for 
if ihey wjll raise scruples in this matter, it is impossible 
to satisfy them, unless the authentic registers of all the 
ages of the Church, could be showed, which is impos- 
sible, for though w^e were satisfied, that all the priests 

* Ox. Div., p. 448. 



274 

of this age were duly ordained, yet, if we be not as 
sure, that all who ordained them, had orders rightly 
given them, and so upward till the days of the Apos- 
tles, the doubt will still remain. Therefore, the pur- 
suing of nice scruples about this, cannot be a thing in- 
dispensably necessary ; otherwise, all people must be 
perplexed with endless disquiet and doubtings. But 
the true touch stone of a church, must he the purity of 
her doctrines, and the conformity of her faith with that 
which Christ and His Jipostles taught.''^^ Admirable 
sentiments ! and much more happy is the people whose 
ministry cherish and inculcate them, than they whose 
Bishops and priests attempt, either superstitiously and 
vain-gloriously, to magnify themselves, or who, in the 
spirit of exclusiveness, and lust for power, unduly ex- 
alt their authority. It is a remark of the same lear- 
ned and eminent prelate, and should be carefully pon- 
dered by every *^ Episcopal Bishop," that ** the raising 
the authority and power of sacred functions, beyond 
w^hat is founded on clear warrants in scripture, is — the 
readiest way to give the world such a jealousy of them, 
and such an aversion to them, as may make them lose 
the authority that they ought to have, while they pre- 
tend to that they have not.^'f 

If such sentiments, and those advanced by other 
Bishops of the English Church, on the subject of *^the 
orders and succession in the ministry,'^ so antagonisti- 
cal with the exclusive high Church views you have ad- 
vocated, are not a departure, from what you have'ex- 
plained yourself to mean by ** the simplicity of the 

* Smyth's Lectures. Lcc. xvi. 
t Past. Care. Fief. p. 44. 



f 275 

faith, as it is in Christ," I know not what is. Your 
remark, so far from being correct, is so totally unsus- 
tained by history — if you meant it to apply to the An- 
glican Church — that I am constrained to think you have 
incautiously made it, and meant it to apply only to the 
Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Uni- 
ted States. 

Yet, even limited thus fiir, it is without founda- 
tion. I refer you to the sentiments of Bishop White. 
'*It is well known, that in the year 1782, when it 
w^as doubtful whether an American Episcopate could 
be either procured or introduced. Bishop White pub- 
lished a considerable treatise,* in which he insisted, 
that for the time being, and until an Episcopate could 
be conveniently obtained, the churches in this country 
should organize themselves into one body. That the 
laity, as well as the clergy, should have a share in the 
government, and form distinct associations ; that the 
clergy and laity together should elect a permanent 
^ President over each convention, whose duties ought 
not materially to interfere with their employments as 
parochial clergymen, and that their superintendence 
should therefore be confined to small districts. This 
superintendent, with other clergymen appointed by the 
body, was to exercise spiritual powers, as those of or- 
dination and discipline over the clergy.'' This was 
Presbyterianism in every respect almost, but the name. 
These sentiments he avowed in 1830, in a letter ad- 
dressed to Bishop Hobart, whose illiberal, exclusive, 
^tld sectarian views he condemned. *' In regard," says 

* See the Letter of Ab. Jarvis to him on the subject, published in his Memoirs 
of the Prot. Ep. Church of the United States, pp. 282-6. 



276 # 

he, *'to the Episcopacy, I think that it should be sus- 
tained as the government of the Church from, the time 
of the Apostles, but avithout criminating the minis- 
try OF other churches, as is the case with the 
Church of England,''^ and I may add, as did Dr. Ho- 
bart's, and do your high church pretensions, to be the 
only true church of God in these United States, in re- 
gular succession from the Apostles. 

The views you advocate in your sermon, are essen- 
tially, and charaf;teristically, as far as they go, those 
of the high church, as skelchcd by Bishop Meade, of 
Va., in his sermon at the consecration of Bishop Elliot, 
to which I shall refer more particularly in my next let- 
ter, in which he gives, with particular reference to Arch- 
bishop Laud, an outline of the doctrines, of this arro- 
gant party, on the subject of the ministry, and of its 
powers and propagation, and whicli he decidedly con- 
demns. Your remark, therefore, is not verified in its 
application even to the Bishops of your own American 
church. I press the subject no further. Abundant 
testimony might be added to show, that the doctrine 
of the Apostolic succession, is incapable of being sus- 
tained, either from the scriptures, or from the opinions 
of the more wise, excellent and devoted Bishops, both of 
the Anglican and American Episcopal churches. It is a 
doctrine for wliich your churches, I hope, are by no 
means yet generally prepared. Itsexclusiveness, uncha- 
ritableness, arrogance, and popish and injurious tenden- 
cies, cannot fail to affront the good sense, and enlighten- 
ed, fervent piety, of a large portion of the more devoted 
and excellent members of the Episcopal churches, not- 

* Smyth's Lectures on Apostolic Succession, pp. 463, 464, 465. 



277 

withstanding they believe, that Episcopacy is the near- 
est approximation to the primitive Apostolical church, 
and therefore give its rites and institutions their prefer- 
ence. But they do not magnify Episcopacy above all 
other qualifications, and inake it, as you do, the grand 
test of a true ministry, and of a true church. 

The unity of the church, they do not place in an ex- 
ternal, visible union with the Bishop as Christ'^ re- 
presentative, who exercises his Headship power, but in 
unity of doctrine in matters essential to salvation. And 
therefore, they are notguilt}^ of the inconsistency, into 
which you are carried, of acknowledging persons of 
other denominations to be christians, and yet declaring 
them to be out of the church of God — rejecting them, 
as you do, at your infinite peril, from the fellowship of 
the saints, and of the household of God — and proclaim- 
ing them to be aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, 
strangers to the covenant of promise, and destitute of 
all tangible evidence of having been pardoned and ac- 
cepted of God. I respect the feelings of such; shall 
ever cherish christian regards for them; and seek to 
promote christian intercourse with them, although I 
differ, in my judgment, from them, about the relative 
value of Episcopacy. But where I find high-church 
views advocated, pushed, and pressed, so as, to en- 
gender feelings of jealousy, envy, pride, and supercili- 
ousness, to draw lines of distinction in society, and to 
rear walls of partition around communities of profes- 
sing christians, and that too — which to me seems very 
surprising — most especially and zealously, both among 
clergy and laity, by some who were not born and 

24 



278 

brought up in the Episcopal Church, and have but re- 
cently deserted other communions^ in which they pro- 
fess to have experienced reh'gion, I cannot but fear, 
that other principles, and another spirit, than those ot" 
our blessed Lord and Master, are exerting a dangerous 
influence. 

Why will you magnify trifles, and cxall the doctiinc 
of ^' Apostolic succession'- to the level of Bible truth, 
prorfouncing it a matter of faith, when the utmost 
that can be said of it is, that it is a mere matter of opin- 
ion? Is not this adding to the sacred scriptures, and 
proving unskillful and unfaithful as a steward of the 
mysteries of God ? Talk about it among yourselves, 
and trace it, as well as you can, through afl its sinuosi- 
ties, dislocations, fractures, and faults, as it runs un- 
der ground, or crops out, or is bent back, or overlaps, 
but do not venture to proclaim it to us, as Bible truth; 
for it is just as absurd in doctrine, as it is false in fact. 

l^r. Bowden* falls back, for his proof of it, to the 
gospel commission, and reasons a priori: on the subject, 
preferring this argument to volumes of historical testi- 
mony. Singular process 1 Truths, propositions, doc- 
trines, may be proved by reasoning, but historical /ac/s 
can only be established by testimony. As a doctrine, 
we do utterly deny that it is taught, directly or indi- 
rectly, in the sacred scriptures. As a fact, the evidence 
has yet to be produced to establish it. And having so 
said, I dismiss the subject, concluding my reprehensions 
of the leading theme of your discourse, in the strong 
and emphatic language of the Rev. J. E. Riddle, of the 
Anglo-Episcopal church, in his plea for Episcopacy. 

♦Letters to Dr. Miller, first series, 21. Tracts on Episcopacy, v. II, 272. 



279 

'' Whatever may become of the Apostolic succession, 
as a theory, or an institute, it is i3ipossible, at all 
events, to prove the fact of such succession, or to 
trace it down the stream of time. In this case, x\\e fact 
seems to involve the doctrine ; and if the FACT be 

HOPELESSLY OBSCURE, the DOCTRINE IS IRRECOVER- 
ABLY LOST. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THE 
PERSONAL SUCCESSION OF MODERN BISH- 
OPS, IN AN UNBROKEN EPISCOPAL LINE, 
FROM THE APOSTLES OR MEN OF THE 
APOSTOLIC AGE.''=^ 

^Christian Antiquities Preface, p. 70. 



LETTER XVI. 

THE TENDENCY OF THE DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION." 

Rev. AND DEAR sir: 

There are some things in your discourses not so inn- 
niediately connected with the doctrine of ^'ApostoHcal 
succession/^ but which, nevertheless, require a mo- 
ment's attention. They show the tendency of the sys- 
tem you advocate, and its identity, in some essential 
points, with the Oxford theology, to which, I believe, 
you are as much opposed as myself. 

Previously, however, a moment's attention may be 
due to the extended account, given in the appendix to 
your second edition, of Mar Yohanna, the Syrian Bish- 
op. It might have gone for what it is worth, but for 
the remark you make in your preface to the newspa- 
per account of ^' the service in Grace Church, Boston," 
viz: 'Uhe similarity, between the Nestorian Church, 
and the Episcopal Church in this country, is remarka- 
ble, and furnishes additional proof, that, wherever a 
church has been preserved, it is always found under 
Episcopal government.'' A legitimate inference, and 
one you no doubt designed, to be drawn from this 
statement, is, that none, calling themselves churches of 
Jesus Christ, having not your Episcopal government. 
are such ; and that, with the loss of Episcopacy, a 
^ church perishes. It has been already shown, how ut- 
terly fallacious, and unfounded, are such positions. 
24^ 



2S2 

I have ascertained a few facts — and from the very 
same source, the •* Christian Witness/' professes to 
have given its information, viz: Mar Yohanna himself — 
sufficient to show, that there are points of dissimilarity 
enough, to render this boasting of resemblance between 
the Nestorian Churches and your own, perfectly ridic- 
ulous. I anticipate, that you will all be ashamed of it 
ere long. The Bishop is no exclusive. 

Mar Yohanna does not hold your doctrine of Apos- 
tolic succession. He believes the Catholic Church to 
be the one chujxh out of all churches^ composed of them 
that truly believe in Jesus Christ — ^just as we Presby- 
terians do, denominating it the invisible church. The 
Nestorians have more than three orders of officers. The 
Patriarch is above Bishops, and Priests, &c. — and must 
always be chosen from particular families^ a circum- 
stance bearing a much more striking resemblance to 
the Aaronic priesthood than yours does. Tfieir Dea- 
cons do not preach ; they are but Sextons of diflcrcnl 
grades, answering to the relative sanctity of the differ- 
ent parts of the church to be swept. Some things, in 
their constitution show an evident departure from Apos- 
tolical order and purity, and tiiereforc, to cite them 
as authority is just about as valid, and conclusive an 
argument, as to cite Rome itself, or any of the corrupt 
churches of the East. Neither their Bishops, nor Pa- 
triarchs, are allowed to marry. Children are allowed 
to commune at any age. Their rite of confirmation is 
a mere *' blessing little children in imitation of Christ,'* 
very different from conveying the Spirit by Apostolic 
imposition of hands. 

We know but little of them, till from the5lhcenturv, 



ii 



283 

when Nestorius, reputed an heretical Bishop, escaped 
from Constantinople, and was received by the n^ioun- 
tain Syrians, who espoused his cause, and adopted his 
sentiments about the power of Christ, refusing to wor- 
ship images, and to do homage to the virgin Mary as 
the mother of God, calling her Christotokos, the 
mother of Christ, and not Throtokos, the mother of 
God. It rather betrays, to my mind, the weakness of 
your cause, that you should seize, and magnify, an ac- 
cidental resemblance, between this church and your 
own, traced out in features, which, you might have 
said, were common to that period of the world, when 
the departure from christian simplicity, predicted by 
Paul, began to take place. 

Dr. Grant's testimony deserves some notice. It 
neutralizes, at once, the use you attempt to make of 
the Episcopacy of the Neslorian churches. He says, 
their form of church government is essentially Episco- 
pal ; but, with a single exception in the Jelu tribe, 
there is not a Bishop among the independent Nes- 
TORiANS, where ikeir forms of religion have heen preser- 
ved the most exempt from foreign influence. It 
was a singular fact, to which my attention was first 
called by the testimony of Dr. Buchanan, there is not a 
word in the Syriac language expressive of the office of a 
Bishop, The Nestorians, in common with the other 
Syrians, have borrowed the Greek term Episcopos, 
This is the more remarkable, considering the fact, that 
the Syriac language was extensively used in Palestine, 
in the days of our Saviour, and ,was spoken by our 
Lord himself: and considering also, the very early 
date of the Syriac version of the scriptures, as early as 



284 

the beginning ot the second century. In every case 
where the term Bishop occurs in our version, in theirs 
it is rendered Presbyter or Priest. I make these state- 
ments, with the single remark, that, while this form of 
church government may be best for the Neslorians, in 
their circumstances, there is enough in the facts I have 
mentioned, to caution us about too hasty an inference 
concerning the Apostolic origin of Episcopacy, on the 
ground that it exists in a church which was founded by 
the Apostles.'"^ 

I return from this digression to trace the tendencies 
of your high church views, which betray themselves, 
in your sermon. 

The first I notice, is, the incidental allusion to bap- 
tism, as regeneration ; and the next, your remark about 
confirmation. In enumerating the duties of '* Episco- 
pal Bishops,'' you say, " they arc to confirm all who 
have been made disciples, through the washing of re- 
generation, (baptism.) by laying their hands upon them, 
and invoking the aid of the Holy Spirit, that they may 
continue Christ's faithful soldiers and servants, to their 
lives end, as St. Peter and St. John did upon the dis- 
ciples in Samaria.'' I presume you have merely in- 
troduced the word baptism in a parenthesis, as your 
explanation of the Apostles' metaphor, viz ; *^ the wash- 
ing of regeneration," applied to adult converts, who, 
at their baptism, publicly professed to renounce the 
world, the flesh and the devil, and to have become 
new creatures in Christ Jesus. 

I have always understood you to believe and teach, 
the necessity, and the reality, of the Spirit's influence, 

*The Nestoriaos or Lost Tribes, by Dr. Grant, pp. 105-6. 



285 

in the regeneration of the sinner — and therefore, can- 
not suppose, that you substitute the rite of baptism, for 
the moral and spiritual renovation, or that change of 
heart, so essential to salvation. Yet your language is 
calculated to make the impression, that, whatever may 
be said of moral renovation, baptism^ whether of adults 
or infants, is regeneration. This is the doctrine of 
Rome, of the Oxford Tractators, and of high church- 
men, generally ; and I must confess, that I feel alarm- 
ed, lest, having adopted their views about the succes- 
sion, you may be carried along w^ith them, in their uses 
and application of it to some of the essential doctrines 
of our faith. 

What you say about confirmation, is even more 
equivocal. If you mean to teach, that the Bishop's 
innposition of hands, is nothing but the occasion, for ut- 
tering his prayer to God, for the special benefit of the 
individual, that he may be endowed with the gifts and 
graces of the Spirit, I see nothing more censurable in 
it, than in the very touching and appropriate act of pa- 

^ rental kindness, when the father of a family, as is often 
done, lays his hand upon his children's heads, like Ja- 
cob, and prays God to '* bless the lads.'' But you 
evidently mean something more by it ; for you com- 
pare, a Bishop's laying of his hands on the heads of 
baptized persons, to the transaction of Peter and John, 

I at Samaria, who thus conferred on the disciples, the 
gift of the Holy Spirit. The Oxford and Popish doc- 
trine is, that the Bishop's laying on of hands, or con- 
firmation, is a sacramental rite, which, by some mys- 
terious process or influence, conveys the Holy Spirit — 
a doctrine, I trust, you will never advocate, for it is a 



286 

fruitful source, of superstition and formality, and, I 
have no doubt, to many, of fatal, soul-destroying delu- 
sion. Yet does your language favor it — which looks 
the more suspicious, because it is known, that confir- 
mation, is considered, by some in the Episcopal Church, 
a means of grace and Divine appointment, mysterious- 
ly efficacious in conferring the Spirit of God. Whene- 
ver your Bishops, by laying their hands on the heads 
of disciples, will do what Peter and John did, i. e., 
immediately and visibly confer the miraculous gifts of 
the Spirit, see Acts, viii, 14-20. Then, but not till 
then, will we give heed, to what is said about the Bish- 
op's hands being the conduit of the Holy Spirit. 

The third thing I notice, showing the high church 
tendency of the views you entertain relative to the 
powers of the christian ministry, is the power of abso- 
lution you claim for them. You say, ** they are espe- 
cially to tell men, that it is only through this ministry, 
that pardon and acceptance with God, can be made 
known. Not that there is any power in the ministry, 
to forgive sin, but they who hold this office, arc the 
constituted agents, •' to pronounce and declare to His 
people, being penitent^ the absolution and remission of 
their sins." Without such a declaration on the part of 
the ministry, there is no tangible evidence of pardon. 
The repenting sinner who has come to Christ by faith 
may be accepted long before this act ; but this act i 
the tangible evidence, communicated through the em- 
bassadors of Christ. If not, what is the use of the mi- 
nistry I They are the agents of Christ, and as such, 
are to make known the terms of reconciliation and par- 
don to sinners ; and, on the supposition that these terms 



II 



287 

have been fulfilled, ihey are also to declare, ihat they 
have been pardoned and accepted of God. Such a 
view of this subject, places the ministry where Christ 
placed it, and holds out to repeniing sinners, the strong 
encouragement to come to the ministry of Jesus, not 
as a mere hireling, employed to perform certain speci- 
fied duties, but as His agent, authorized to tell him, his 
sins are forgiven. How^ holy the office T' 

How very near these views, approximate to, yea how 
identical they are with, the high Church doctrines of 
Bishops Hobart and Ravenscroft, must be obvious to 
every one that will compare them. Dr. Hobart says, 
''When the gospel is proclaimed, communion with the 
Church by participation of its ordinances, at the hands 
of a duly authorized priesthood, is thk indispensable 
coNDiTiOiN OF SALVATION."* Dr. Ravcuscroft says, 
that the '' Church, the ministry, and the sacraments, 
are as distinctly and truly appointments of God, for the 
salvation of sinners, as the faith of the gospel, and that 
it is only, as these are united in the profession of reli- 
gion, can the hope, thereby given to a man, be worthy 
of the name of assurance." He considered *' the grace 
and mercy of the gospel as matters of strict covenant 
stipulation; as bound up with the authority to dispense 
them; as inseparable from that authority; and only by 
VIRTUE OF THAT AUTHORITY (with revercnco be it spo- 
ken,) pledging the glorious source of all mercy and 
grace to his creatures."! No wonder that he boldly 
proclaimed and taught, that the ministers of Christ, en- 
dowed with this authority, were the embassadors sent 

♦Companion for the altar, p. 302. 

t Doctrines of the Church vindicated, pp. 31-2. 



288 

forth '^to negotiate the sinner s pardon /" Nor that you. 
with such notions, should as boldly say, **it is o^L^ 
through this ministry, (you mean your Episcopally or- 
dained ministry, and can mean none else,) that pardon 
and acceptance with God can be made known." 

Had I not learned the excessive looseness with which 
you express yourself, I should have been disposed to re- 
buke, with the utmost severity, the utterance of such a 
sentiment, so perfectly at variance with the scriptures of 
truth, the providence of God, and the experience of hun- 
dreds and thousands of redeemed sinners both on earth 
and in Heaven. Your language limits the operations 
of God's gracious spirit, and the salvation of sinners, to 
an Episco|)ally f);d:iined ministry. Had you included 
the ministry of all other denominations, Episcopal or 
not, your assertion would not even then have been true, 
either doctrinally or historically. When the poor per- 
secuted and alllicted church of Jerusalem were driven 
from their homes, like bleating sheep before the roar- 
ing lion, by Saul of Tarsus, ** breathing out ihreatenings 
and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord," who 
'*made havoc of the church, entering into every house, 
and haling men and women, committed them to pris* 
on," the historian Luke tells us, therefore, *' they that 
were scattered abroad went every where preaching the 
wordy ^flcts^ viii, 3. 

They felt — as we Presbyterians insist that all our 
members should feel, wherever they may go — and as 
you should teach yours — that it was their privilege to 
tell of the Saviour they had found, and to make known 
to the lost and impenitent, what they knew to be true 
by their own experience, the way of '* pardon and ac- 



289 

ceptance with God," through the pcacc-speaking blood 
of Jesus Christ, received and applied by faith. To seal 
their mouths, as you would, and to claim this privilege 
exclusively for the ministry, and still worse, for an 
Episcopally ordained ministry, is monstrous. Alas for 
[)Oor perishing souls ! alas for a ruined world ! if none 
but the priests' lips can make known pardon and accep- 
tance with God ! 

I have met with cases, and can refer you, by name, 
to persons and places, where a poor awakened sinner 
applied to an Episcopally ordained priest, to know the 
way of salvation, and he could not tell hitn, but rallied 
the inquirer for his low spirits, and directed him to mix 
more in cheerful company. It is true it was some five 
and twenty years ago, since which I rejoice that Evan- 
gelical religion has been so greatly and extensively re- 
vived in your churches, as well as in our ow^n, that I 
should not apprehend the like ignorance now in any of 
your clergy. But, you are certainly aware, that in the 
English Church, during one period of its history, and 
to a considerable extent, a portion of that very minis- 
try,^ who you say, are the only medium through which 
pardon and acceptance with God can be made known, 
were the very last beings to apply to for information 
on the subject, knowing no more about it than Nicode- 
mus, and being utterly devoid of his serious and inqui- 
ring spirit. 

The poet's description is exact: 

" Loose in moralg, and in manners vain, 
In conversation frivolous, in dress 
Extreme, at once rapacious and profuse; 
Frequent in park with lady at his side, 

I * See Rowland Hill's village dialogues. 

25 



290 

Ambling and prattling scandal as he goes } 
But rare at liome, and never at his books, 
Or with his pen, save when he sc-awls a card ; 
Couslant at routs, familiar with a round 
Of ladyships, a stranger to the poor^ 
Ambitious of preferment for its gold. 
And, well prepared by ignorance and slolli 
To make God's work a sinecure ; a tlarc 
To his own pleasures and his patrons pride ; 
From such Apostles, O ye mitred heads 
Preserve the church ! and lay not careless hi.ndd 
On skulls that cannot tcaci? and will not learn," 

You make no distinction, between the authoritative 
proclamation, and offer, of the gospel, by the minister of 
Jesus Christ, and the natural right, and blessed privi- 
lege of every redeemed sinner, as a \vitness for Jesus 
Christ, to testify, from his or her own experience, that 
He hath power on earth to forgive sin, and lo tell the 
wretched guilty and perishing, how^ it can be had, by re- 
pentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus 
Christ. But so tenacious are you of your dignity as 
the Attorney of Heaven, that you hesitate not to pro- 
nounce it all uncertain and worthless, that private 
christians may say — **it is onJi/ through this ministry that 
pardon and acceptance with God can be made known/' 

There were certain forms of leprosy under the Jew- 
ish law, before the cure of which could be pronounced 
genuine, that required the inspection of the priest. 
You have, in fact, assumed the same rights and func- 
tions as pertaining to your priests, in reference to the 
moral leprosy of the soul, [so that no poor sin-sick crea- 
ture, that has found pardon through the blood of Jesus, 
must presume to say, that he knows any thing at all 
about it, or can have any evidence of his pardon and 
acceptance, unless, and until, he consult the priest, and 
receives his ghostly sentence of absolution! ! All the 



291 

inward witnessing of the Spirit of God, given as the 
spirit of adoption, enabling him to cry Abba Father — 
all the sealing and earnest of that Spirit, given to them 
that believe, are of no account. It is presumptous in a 
poor pardoned sinner, to thinl? he knows any thing 
about it; — he can have '^ no tangible evidence of par- 
don," till he passes under the priest's hands for inspec- 
tion! 1 scarcely know how to express my feelings of 
shame and mortification, that a Bishop of the United 
States of America, in this 19th century, should arro- 
gate such powders to himself and his priests, and express 
sentiments, in my opinion, so utterly derogatory ot 
the blessed and gracious work of the Spirit of God, 
** who witnesseth with our spirits that we are tlio cliil- 
dren of God.'' Do you not see the dreadful and dan- 
geious tendency of such high church notions ? 

By your lofty claims for the Apostles' successors, 
^' Episcopal Bishops," you not only usurp the rights 
and powers of the ministry of Christ, whom He has 
forbidden to call any man Master, (Lord,) Father, or 
to aspire, the one to be greater than the other — you not 
only exclude from the fold of Christ, and froni His cove- 
nanted mercy — from a name and place in His Church, 
all who belong not to Episcopal Churches — you not only 
rob the whole family of Christ's people here on earth, 
of the blessed privilege of making known to sinners 
the riches of God's grace in his kindness to them, 
through Jesus Christ, and seal their lips in utter silence 
as to the w^ay of a sinner's pardon and acceptance with 
God ; but actually wrest from the hands of the Holy 
Spirit of God, the grand distinctive and peculiar work 
of His office, require the penitent sinner to pass under 



292 

the priest's hands for inspection as the constituted 
agent, ^^ to pronounce and declare to his people being 
penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins," and 
say, '' without such a declaration on the part of the 
ministry, there is no tangible evidence of pardon'MlL 
If I thought you really believed, and advocated such a 
sentiment, I should be filled with the most painful fears 
in relation to you; but I hope much from tlie very 
vague, loose and inconsistent way in which you have 
expressed yourself, and that you actua'ly did not mean 
to convey the ideas which your words express. 

Excuse mc, for I feel deeply serious and solicitous 
on this point, if I direct you. for a moment, to the in- 
consistencies into which you have becMi betrayed. You 
admit that ** the repenting sinner, who has come to 
Christ by faith, may be accepted long before this act," 
Of course he is a pardoned sinner, but according to 
your views, he can have no valid satisfactory evidence 
whatever, of the fact. Do you not see, that you thus 
set aside, all the evidence of consciousness, by which 
the penitent believing sinner, knows, when he exerci- 
ses faith, repentance, love, and other christian graces — 
of whose verity, consciousness may give as decisive 
evidence, as it can of any other class of our exercisesi 
emotions, affections, preferences, purposes, and actions? 
Do you not also see. that while your assertion is, in 
this respect, directly at war with christian experience, 
it absolutely denies the agency of the S])irit, as ever 
exerted, in an}^ other way, than in concurrence with 
the priests' absolution or declaration of forgiveness ? 

What you mean by '* tangible evidence," I confess, I 
cannot well comprehend ; but, as that only is tangible, 



293 

which is substantial and real, so I suppose, that by tan- 
gible evidence^ you nnust nnean that which is substantial 
and essential. Now, if this be your meaning — and if 
not, your words have no rational meaning at all — you 
do most unequivocally exalt the evidence of pardon 
given by the priest's absolution, above human conscious- 
ness, and the Spirit's witnessing with our spirit. Faith 
can bring with it no assurance ; love can furnish no 
evidence ; the Spirit cannot comfort the penitent and 
pardoned sinner ; and all for want of a priest to pro- 
nounce absolution ! ! \^erily this is exalting the priest- 
hood at a fearful rate ' The foundations of such a lofty 
edifice, should be well laid ; but they are uncertain 
and unstable as the sand. 

You say of the ministry, ^Mhey are the agents of 
' Christ, and as such, are to make known the terms of re- 
conciliation and pardon to sinners ; and on the suppo- 
sition that these terms have been fulfilled, they are 
I also to declare, that they have been pardoned and ac- 
i cepted of God." These statements, I admit, are just 
and true ; but if you regard them as identical, or at 
all accordant w^ith those you have made about the pow- 
er of absolution, granted to the ministry, above refer- 
red to, I fear, that every efl^brt to enlighten, either 
yourself, or those of your readers who will not, or can- 
not discriminate, will be utterly useless. They are as 
diflferent as black and white, night and day, and bear 
no points of resemblance. Yet it seems, that you have 
not suspected any difference, for you say, that ^^ such a 
view of the subject" — I presume, as the connection 
would intimate, that you refer to the view given in the 
quotation contained in the commencement of this para- 
25^ 



294 

graph — ''not only places the nf)inistry, where Christ 
placed it, but encourages penitent sinners to come to 
the ministry of Jesus — as his agent althokized to 

TELL HIM HIS SINS ARE FORGIVEN.'' 

Bishop Ravenscroft used similar language^ which led 
Dr. Rice to express the lamentation I repeat over you, 
if really your *^ view of this subject," extended any fur- 
ther than to the authority of ministers ** to make known 
the terms of reconciliatian and pardon to sinners/' and 
attributes to them the power of absolution. ''It shall 
be for a lamentation that ministers of religion, in this 
enlightened age, are running back into the darkness of 
the r2th century ; and that any of our countrymen 
allow prejudice so to sway their minds, that they admit 
the claims of men, who set up to be accredited agents 
of Heaven and subslituies of Jesus C/irist.^^^ 

I know nothing more pertinent, in reply to such 
views, than Bishop Ravenscroft's own interrogatories, 
by which he thought to convict us Presbyterians, of a 
blind credulity, in conlidin'g in the mim'strations of mi- 
nisters who had not been Episcopally ordained. *'What 
Presbyterian, or other dissenter, (the arrogance of his 
use of this title, in these United States, where we know 
no established religion, is insullerable,) will risk the 
purchase of properly from a distant owner, by power 
of attorney, upon the jjiere assertion of the agent, that 
he is empowered to convey the title ? Know you of 
any who would not require to see the power of attor- 
ney — that it was in due form of law, and such as would 
bear the principal, before he paid the price, or even 
became bound for it If And know you not of thou- 

♦ Dr. Rice's Review of Bishop Ravenscroft's VinJicalion anj Defence, p. 59. 
t Doctrines ot the Church, \'indic«alcd, i», 31. 



295 

sands, who bargain for the rich inheritance of ihe gos- 
pel for themselves and their families, without the 
slightest security, beyond Ihe mere say so of the agents' 
It is true; but Presbyterians love to examine into such 
matters, and will not take the assertion of any Bishop 
or priest, that they are the high dignitaries of Heaven, 
sent forth to negotiate the sinner's pardon, or authori- 
taiicely to declare the fact that he has been pardoned. 
Dr. Rice has well said, ''since the Bishop puis the 
matter on this ground, we demand that HE shows us 
HIS rowER OF ATTORNEY, dulij authenticated,^'^ 

I shall probably be told by you, that this doctrine of 
absolution, is a doctrine of your Church, and that your 
Liturgy, under the head of ^Mhc ordering of priests,'' 
contains a form of prayer to be said by the Bishop, in 
which it is distinctly recognized. With us, however, and 
with all others who follow not the traditions of men. 
this is of no authority. The morning and evening ser- 
vice are but the reformation of the l\omi<h missals of 
Sarum, York, Hereford, Bangor, and Lincoln, from 
which, in the days of Edward Vf, that now in use 
in your Churches, \\\{\\ some little alteration since, was 
formed. In that, there was no confession nor absolu- 
tion. The reformation in the offices of the Church, 
proceeded gradually. The liberty allowed in the Ro- 
mish churches, was not allowed in the English, on this 
subject, and the ** reformers split upon this rock, sacri- 
ficing the peace of the church to a mistaken necessity 
of an exact uniformity of doctrine and worship, in 
which it was impossible for all men to agree.''! 

The remnants of Popery are to be traced, in five 

* Review of Bij^hop Ravenscroft's Vindication, p. 59. 
t Neal'9 Hist, of ihe Puritans, v. I, pp. 95-07. 



296 

particulars, in the book of common prayer, as used by 
the English Church, viz : Baptismal regeneration — the 
real presence in the mystery or sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper — penance — respect for dead Saints, in 
offices appropriate to their days — and absolution. The 
great bulk of the people could not be so easily weaned 
from the Roman Catholic rites, notions, and predilec- 
tions, and therefore, although the Liturgy was impro- 
ved in the days of Edward, it again, after the triumph 
of Popery under Mary, and the restoration of Protes- 
tantism, under Elizabeth, underwent some changes, but 
came not up to the standard of Edward. 

I rejoice, that in these United States, the Liturgy in 
a variety of particulars, has undergone a decided refor- 
mation; and I have especially been gratified in thinking, 
that wliilc that reformation has not been carried to (he 
extent wliich it micrht be. and it is to be hoped will be, 
yet certain parts of it, savoring most of Romanism, had 
fallen into a state of desuetude, and virtually become 
obsolete. Of this description 1 had considered that part 
of the Liturgy already referred to, which recognizes 
the power of the Priest to pronounce absolution. The 
reference made to this subject, in the morning service, 
Immediately after the confession, is essentially differ- 
ent, from that in the service for the ordering of Priests. 
The former is but a recognition of the authority of the 
Priest, to declare the terms of reconciliation and pardon, 
and authoritatively to proclaim the forgiveness of sin, 
with a prayer that the penitence then professed, may 
be such as shall please God — a very different affair 
from what your language teaches. 

Knowing these things, I had always believed that 



297 

the Episcopal Church of these United States, was as 
truly protestant in this particular, as any other deno- 
mination of christians, and was therefore greatly sur- 
prised, and even confounded, in meeting the sentiments 
in your discourse, which I feel bound, severely to rep- 
rimand. 

And lest you may say, that I have with too great li- 
berty, and erroneously, judged about the state of feel- 
ing and sentiment in a churcli, of which I am not a 
member, I quote the language contained in the Episco- 
pal Recorder of January 27, 1841, under the caption 
of *^Enghsh and American Liturgy,*' setting forth ex- 
actly the state of feeling and sentiment in your cfiur- 
ches on this subject, which I had supposed to exist. *'We 

I have obliterated from our services, with one single ex- 
ception, all traces of thai power formerly assiunedhy 

i the clergy, and derived from the Romis!i church, of 
granting to mankind absolution from their sins, and re- 
served this formidable prerogative for God alone, who 

* can execute it in righteousness and equity. For the 
advantage of the membors of our communion, and as 
a warning to guard them against the entrance of abuse 
from this quarter, it may be advisable, distinctly to ad- 
vert to the exception, which I have just mentioned. 

I In the ordination of Priests, as the fonnula now stands, 
when the Bishops and Presbyters lay their hands upon 

' the candidate, one of the form of words the Bisiiop is 

i pennitted to use, is this: ''Receive the Holy Ghost 

FOR THE OFFICE AND WORK OF A PrIEST IX THE ChURCH 

OF God, now committed unto thee by the imposi- 
TiOxX of our hands ; whose sins thou dost forgive, 
they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost re- 



298 

TAIN, THEY ARE RETAINED.'^ Tliis is, to all intcnts and 
purposes, to allow the Priesthood the power of a ple- 
nary remission of sins, in direct contradiction to the doc- 
trine maintained by Protestants, at the time of the re- 
formation. It is believed that no Bishop in our coun- 
try ever ventured upon the use of these words, and we 
are confident that few or none of that order among us. 
could conscientioushj adopt it, always preferring the 
other form of words, which is also provided for the oc- 
casion, and liable to no objection. Would it not be 
wise, however, in our general conventic^n, entirely to 
expunge these words, and thus to close the door against 
the corruption of the church at all future periods? Hu- 
man nature, in all ages, is but too prone to degeneracy 
and superstition, and the history of Christianity sol- 
emnly admonishes us of the necessity of incessant vigi- 
lance against their stealthy invasions. '^ 

To a great extent at times, this same state of feeling 
and sentiment prevailed too in the Englisii church. 
Bishop Burnet, in his70lh year, in his solemn address to 
the world, when about to depart, holds the following 
language, directly in proof, that ther(j was a portion o! 
the English Church, that could not approve of the re- 
lics of popery, still found in the Liturgy. Speakingol 
low cliuich men, he says, ** tliey know of no power 
in a Priest to pardon si?i, other than the declaring the 
gospel pardon^ upon the conditions upon which it is of- 
fered.'' Rejecting this and other tenets of popery no- 
ticed by him, he adds : -'they look on all these notions 
as a stoj) toward popery, though they do not conclude 
that all those who have made them, designed that, by 
so doing/*"^ 

*|'ast ajKi Present, p. 44. Ith ed. IS*?!, London. 



299 

Such is the voice of the entire Protestant Church of 
God. It is part and parcel of their testimony against 
Popery. How perfectly preposterous and absurd, 
therefore, is it to attempt to confirm your positions, on 
this subject, by an appeal to the Confession of faith, of 
the Presbyterian Church — that of the Westminster Di- 
vines, as modified and adopted in this country! It 
lends its support to no such doctrine. Under the head 
•'of Church censures,"^ speaking of ''Church offi- 
cers,'^ that is, according to the Presbyterian system of 
government, ruling elders, as well as preaching pres- 
byters, and ministers of the Gospel, it says, *' To these 
officers, the keys of the kingdom are committed, by 
virtue whereof, they have power respectively to retain 
and remit sins,'^ what is meant by these expressions, is 
immediately after explained. The reference is to 
Church censures, to the discipline and government of 
the Church, and not to any authoritative declaration 
of forgiveness or absolution, by the ministry of the 
Gospel. It is added, as the explanation — '• to shut 
that kingdom against the impenitent, both by word and 
censures." Here the meaning is [ilain, that both by 
the preaching of the Gospel, and by the administration 
of discioline, the officers of the Church — the session — 
are authorized to exclude impenitent persons from its 
communion, to shut the door against them, they re- 
taining their impenitence and thus being retained in 
\ their sins, and so judged by this judicatory. It is fur- 
Uher added — *' and to open it unto penitent sinners, by 
the ministry of the Gospel, and by absolution from cen- 
sures, as occasions may require.'' Should you refer 

* Chapter xxx, section 2. 



300 

to this passage, and stop at the word absolution, or af- 
ter the first clause without the explanatory clause that 
follows, or quote it without referring to the connec- 
tion, and to the subject of Church censures, which is the 
subject of the entire chapter, you might indeed lead 
the ignorant and unthinking to believe, that the Pres- 
byterian Church taught your doctrine of absolution ; 
but no one, capable of understanding the meaning of 
words, and taking them in their proper relation, could 
ever extract, from this section, the doctrine which you 
teach, of the power of Christ's ministers, ^* as Ilis 
agents, authorized to tell him, (the repenting sinner,) 

HIS SINS ARE FORGIVKN." 

It is oi)cning the door of admission to the Church, 
of which the confession, in the words above quoted, 
speaks. That, it says, the otFiccrs of the Church may 
do, in two ways, according as the occasions require. 
One way is ** by the ministry of the Gospel." It is 
tlirough the preaching of the word, that men are 
brought to believe, to repent, and thus to become, 
members of Christ's invisible Chun^h, and qualified and 
entitled to admission into his visible Church. This is 
the way appropriate to those that had never belongeclBI 
to the Church — one of the occasions contemplated. 
The other is the restoration to the Church, of such as 
had once belong(3d to it, but had been excluded from 
it for their sins. This is to be done *• by absolution 
from censures." Upon the profession of repentance, 
and the exhibition of credible evidence of their faith, 
&c., they, who had been lying under censure of sus- 
pension, or excommunication, are to be restored **by 
absolution from censure." Where is there any thing, 



301 

in all this, like the absolution for which j^ou plead t 
The two subjects are just as different, as are, church 
organization, and christian experience. 

I should not have thought, for one moment, of intro- 
ducing these remarks, had I not learned, that you have 
attempted to support your doctrine by this part of our 
Confession. But it will not help you, any more than 
the Bible. Nothing will relieve you from the incon- 
sistency into which you are betrayed, by teaching, in 
one breath, that absolution is to be pronounced by the 
priest, on those that are penitent — of course on those 
who unfold their own thoughts, feelings, and evidences 
of gracious character, which are matters of their own 
consciousness, and to be determined, FiRfsT, through the 
exercise of their own judgment about themselves, for 
neither you, nor your priests, will pretend to judge the 
heart — and in the next bi*eath, of saying, that no man 
can have any tangible evidence of pardon, without this 
act or declaration of the embassador of Christ. Thus you 
do, in effect, at one moment, make the penitent sinner's 
judgment of himself — unfolded in the report of his or 
her personal experience — the rule and foundation of the 
priest's judgment, the very hinge or condition on which 
he pronounces absolution, and at the next moment, you 
deny to the poor being, all right of judgment, all tangi- 
ble evidence whatever, of his pardon and acceptance 
with God, till the priest has given his judgment. You 
do, in reality, exalt, as I have said, the priest's judg- 
ment, who cannot search the heart, above that of the 
penitent sinner, who has his or her own consciousness 
to guide, and above the Spirit of God, who knoweth 
what is in man, and " beareth witness with our spirits, 
26 



302 

that we are the children of God !" Verily, these things 
are too ridiculous to deserve serious attention. I defy 
you to produce the slightest shade of proof from the 
word of God, that the minister of Jesus Christ is '* His 

AGENT, AUTHORIZED TO TELL (tIIE PENITENT SINNER,) 
HIS SINS ARE FORGIVEN.'' 

The fourth and last tendency of your high church 
views of the powers of the ministry, that 1 notice, is 
the jealousy which they produce, in^ relation to ** all 
those voluntary societies, formed for benevolent pur- 
poses." ^^Few," you say, ** have moral courage to 
keep aloof, and to follow the phmf, which Christ has 
given, for the reformation of man. They let go the 
Gospel, and depend upon human- efforts, to dry 7ip ///^ 
desolating streams of vice." This has been understooc!. 
and I presume you meant it to ap|)Iy, especially to tem- 
perance societies ; for you are understood to be friend- 
ly to the Bible society, and have been for several years, 
the President of our State Bible society. Whatever 
may have been your meaning, in charging the younL 
deacons, and the priest whom you ordained, while 3'oa 
do not *^ ask (them) to oppose the efforts of men, to 
put down any vice," you say, *'God forbid! I would 
•rather tell you to bid them God speed ;" yet, neverthe- 
less, you admonish them, " to remember tliat (they) 
are always to be ministers of Christ — that he has insti- 
tuted a great society, into which he invites all of human 
kind — the Church — that the means, which he has re- 
vealed, to promote their reformation, not only of the 
outer, but the inner man, and fit them for becoming 
worthy members of this Church, is His Gospel." 
All this is well enough ; but said where it was, and 



303 

under the circumstances, relating to the temperance 
effort in this city, it has been understood, I will not say 
whether justly or unjustly, to have a direct reference 
to the total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, 
which, for the last year, has been sought to he promo- 
ted by means of the adoption of a pledge to that effect, 
and of the formation of temperance societies on that 
ground. It certainly is capable of being so understood 
and applied, and the lovers of ^' good wines,'' w^ho can 
find a Bishop or a priest to drink a glass with them, in 
(he social party, may plead the indirect influence of 
your remarks, in favor of their liberty, and against 
'* the rabid ultraists," and boast, these are the ministers 
for us. 

I w^ould not, on any account, do 3-ou injustice, or in- 
sinuate that you would throw any obstacle in the way 
of the temperance reform, or, that you would even wish 
to claim for yourself an indulgence, the sacrifice of 
which, on your part, might exert a favorable influence, 
and conduce to the advancement of the cause of tem- 
perance. But this I must say, that the direct and prac- 
tical bearing, of your advice to the ordained priest and 
deacons, is a matter of very deep regret, to myself, 
and to all wdio are anxious to see this entire communi- 
ty discard forever, from among them, as a beverage, 
all intoxicating liquors. **I would advise you," you 
say. *^ as you desire success in winning souls to Christ, 
and value your future peace and influence among men, 
to keep aloof from ei^ery voluntary society, '^^ Your ad- 
vice to them, against opposing any benevolent effort, 
and about being always ministers of Christ, &:c., can 
never counteract the influence, and effect of this un- 



304 

qualified recommendation. If it is not right for your 
priests and deacons to co-operate with temperance so- 
cieties, because they may 'M^ecome secuhirizcd, and 
often excited/' by so doing, the members of your 
churches, may plead the same reason, for their refusal 
to co-operate ; and if your clergy, and members, will 
countenance the use of any intoxicating liquor, as a be- 
verage, the evident, inevitable tendency of such a 
course, will be to make your churches tlic sanctuary 
for the lovers of wine and strong drink, their *^ark ol 
safety,'' where they may ''seek for some resting place 
where they can escape such agitations." Now, such a 
result I do greatly deprecate. 1 earnestly desire to 
see the whole unite I influence of the Episcopal church, 
firmly and efficiently embodied, and exerted, for the 
advancement of the cause of temperance, on the basis 
of total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks — a basis 
so signally honored and blessed of God, for the welfare 
and salvation of hundreds and thousands of our fellow 
men, for the rescue of their families from want, de- 
gradation, and wretchedness, and for their restoration 
to happiness, honor and prosperity. 

I deeply lament, that your high Church views, should 
influence you, to advise your clergy, to stand aloof from 
this eflort. If there is any thing imprudent, and not as 
might be desired, by all whose views of order and pro- 
priety may be more exact, connected with temperance 
movements — of which certainly there has been nothing 
of late here — there is the more need, why the conser- 
vative influence of the friends of order and sobriety, 
should be felt, in guarding it, and in giving a right di- 
rection to the eflTort, 



305 

The spirit of seclusion, and the practice of stand- 
ing aloof, or of avoiding, as you say, the voluntary 
movements for the refornnation of society, cannot fail 
to engender, in my opinion, evils exceedingly mis- 
chievous. It seem^s to me, to be the very spirit of Ju- 
daism, which would suffer the world to go on, in its 
corruptions, and care not to have any intercourse with 
it at all, for any other purpose than secular gain, or to 
make proselytes. To be consistent, it must be carried 
out; and all the social intercourse of life, all the kind 
charities of good neighborhood, all co-operation, in the 
civil government, and for purposes of education, or of 
social or literary improvement, must be avoided, be- 
I cause it is not, exclusively, in the Church, or the work 
< of the Church. You must withdraw too, from the Bi- 
ble society, just as recently did the Bishop of Salisbury, 
England, and for the very same reasons; '^because," 
as he says, *' the Independent, the Baptist, the Quaker, 
the Socinian assemble on the platform, by the side of 
the members of the Church," &c. — meetings are held 
in parishes, which the clergy would not wish — church- 
men mingle with dissenters — and proceedings take 
place, which ^' tend to lower the influence of the cler- 
gyman with his parishioners ;" and because, ^' the un- 
limited license of private judgment, both in point of 
faith and discipline, which it is the effect of the system 
of the society (the voluntary society) to foster, are, as 
much at variance with the spirit of the Church, as they 
are agreeable to the views of some of the bodies that 
have separated from her."^ 

Here we have it, distinctly and clearly avowed — any 

* See the Churchman, published at New A'ork, April 30, 1S42. 

26* 



306 

thing and every thing must give way — all public inter- 
ests and social advantages must be sacrificed, and noth- 
ing must be countenanced by Episcopal clergymen, 
which does not form part and parcel of the Church — 
the Episcopal Church. Church peculiarities are mag- 
nified, and exalted above every thing else. Drunkards 
may reel along the streets, families may pine in penury 
and want, orphans may starve and perish, yea the ine- 
briate may find their way into the Ciuirch, and stagger 
to the very communion table, but unless tlie Church 
rouses herself to act, no matter what may be the demand 
for, and what the glorious success of, voluntary asso- 
ciations, for the reformation, and advancemoMit of the 
general interests of the community — moral, physical, 
social, intellectual, your clei'gy, to act consistently with 
your advice, must **Kr:RP aloof ff?om kvkry volun- 
tary sociKTv." I ask if this is like the Spirit of Jesus 
Christ? if this is accordant with his example and pre- 
cepts. 

You may plead the opinions of your Bishops and 
conventions, and refer to the lectures of Bishop Hop- 
kins,^"^ for an exposition of your views and principles; 
but I feel impelled to declare, that so far from tempe- 
rance or voluntary societies, for pur])oscs of reformation 
and benevolence, being founded on worldly principles, 
opposed to the word of God, and tending to give a tri- 
umph to infidelity, as he affirms, they are but the work- 
ing out of the principles of the gospel, as it secures 
an host of incidental advantages to men and society, 
even where it does not take efiect in the renovation of 

l^Lul^'"' Pfi''=i-ivc ClinrcJi co;npr.rcJ wlih the Protestant Epid.opal Church, j>, 



307 

the heart, and in the salvation of the soul. And in 
pressing this op/inion on your attention, I am happy to 
avail myself, of the sentiments of a dignitary of the 
Episcopal Church, Arch-deacon Jeffreys, who answers 
triumphantly, your insinuated, and Bishop Hopkins' 
avowed, objections against temperance and other vol- 
untary societies, viz: that they are of human device: 

After describin^T the drunken condition of Enf]rland 
and New South Wales, he says, '' In this deplorable 
condition of our country, the mercit\il grace of God has 
suggested the only remedy, that has ever prevailed to 
stop the desolating scourge; and j)rofessors of the gos- 
pel, instead of rushing to the battle of the Lord, — their 
bosoms warmed wMth the love of Christ — have mana- 
ged, to set up the gospel as an enemy to the great deli- 
verance, that the Lord is now workin^f amonD:st us ! 
O monstrous delusion ! delirium ! ! insanity ! ! ! In the 
next age it will not bo believed ; and the historian w^ho 
shall attempt to relate it, will himself be suspected of 
having ^Mipped his wrings in wine ! " Madidis quce 
CANTAT SosTRATus ALis."' For surcly, such a view of 
the gospel as this, is a miserable delusion of the under- 
standing, to say the least ; and the man who professes- 
to admire the gospel, and the labours of self denying 
love, which mark its character, while he can coldly 
I look upon these very labors brought into action by 
temperance societies, must either be afflicted w^ith a 
strange darkness, and bewilderment of his understand- 
ing, upon the subject, or else be extremely itncked. 
Temperance societies are, in fact, the effect and work- 
ing of the gospel. They are the very agency which^ 
the genuine gospel is calculated to set at work — the 



308 

very 'talent' which is put into our hands, by the mer- 
cy of God, as adapted for this particular end.'' 

**Who is to go into the dram-shops of our cities, 
and the innumerable beer shops of our towns and vil- 
lages, and persuade the wretched inmates, to abandon 
these hot-beds of crime and misery, and to frequent the 
house of God? The Church cannot do it, so long as 
she herself uses the drunkard's drink. While she holds 
the intoxicating cup in her own hand, the reehng drunk- 
ard will mock her to her face, and in answer to all her 
remonstrances, will snccrin^ly oflcr to * drink her 
health,' and pledge her cup in his own. Stubborn facts 
have proved, that, so far from reclaiming the drunk- 
ards with such a gospel as llih, she cannot even keep 
the members she has got ; and, that, so long as the 
Church dallies with the bait, parlies with the tempter, 
and fosters the deceiver within her own bosom, she is 
far more likely, to lose her own members, by deser- 
tion to the ranks of the intemperate, than to bring over 
the intemperate to her fold." 

^' We have been, hitherto, pleading the cause of the 
many millions, that never go near the house of God, 
and never hear the sound of the preachers voice ! But 
here are instances, in which the destroyer has entered 
into the very bosom of the Church, and carried away, 
both the sheep and the shepherd, from the fold ! And 
will the objector still say, * why not leave it to the gos- 
pel to cure intemperance]' (the very spirit of your ad- 
vice to your clergy.) The Church cannot even keep 
her own^ much less can she reclaim the drunkard, by, 
such a gospel scheme as this." 

**Has any plan of operation yet been proposed, 



I 



309 

which, in its visible effects, is, at all, to be compared 
with the astonishing effects, even now produced by the 
agency of temperance societies, thougli they are clog- 
ged, and hindered, in the good they might do, by the 
keeping back of those who ought to be their best and 
warmest friends! But notwithstanding this strange, 
this unnatural hindrance, the tetotal society, where- 
ver it is found, has done immense good. It has per- 
suaded vast multitudes away from the haunts of intem- 
perance, and drawn them lo the house of God. Thus 
it is a powerful handmaid of the gospel. Christ does 
not usually extend His kingdom, in the present day, by 
miracles, but by sending His blessing upon human in- 
struments and second causes. The man, therefore, 
j who neglects to employ these for the cure of a nation- 
j al evil, and even encourages other causes, (such as 
drinking fiery wines, port, sherry, madeira, cham- 
paign, and in parties, and at table, in company with 
I those who are known to be occasionally inebriate, or 
under any circumstances, which may sanction the use 
of intoxicating liquors as a beverage,) which have ma- 
nifestly a contrary tendency, upon the plea that he 
will leave it to the grace of the gospel to cure if, in so 
doing, teaches antinomianism in its very worst and 
rankest form."' 

*^ He gives his countenance to those customs, which 
encourage others to continue in sin that grace may 
abound. He turns the grace of God into licentious- 
ness, and makes Christ the minister of sin. He inflicts 
a deeper and deadlier w^ound on Christianity, under the 
guise of a friend, than her bitterest enemy can possi- 
blv do: for men iudfre of relisfion, bv the conduct 



310 

of her friends, and not by the conduct of her enennies. 
He stabs the gospel to the heart, and then substitutes 
a wretched invention of his own, which is no more 
like the gospel, than the cold hearted selfishness of the 
world, is like the self denying love of Christ — no more 
like the gospel than a stone statue is like a living, 
breathing man."* 

I mirdit notice other dani^erous tendencies of the 
high church notions, you advocate, but confine my- 
self, entirely, to those, which develop themselves in 
your sermon. Every one of them, on which I have 
animadverted, in this letter, seem to me, to be fraught 
with evil to the cause of Jesus Christ, and to the best 
interests of society. They are the legitimate fruit of 
principles, which I earnestly hope may never take 
root, and spread in ihc United States — the very spirit 
and essence of popery. I did not dream that you was 
tinctured with them, till I read your sermon. I had 
always supposed you were adverse to such principles, 
and that you cared more for the glory of the Lord 
.lesus Christ in the immediate work of saving sinners, 
than for exalting the Episcopal Church, and inculcating 
the spirit T>f Judaism, ** Stand ofl', for I am holier than 
thou.'^ 

1 deplore the miscliief which such sentiments are cal- 
culated to produce, and the ruin they are adapted to 
bring upon the souls of men. Only let men believe, 
that the church is the ark of safely, and be thoroughly 
brought under the influence of a sacramental religion, 
by which, in some mystic, mysterious manner, by 

* The religi ous objection to letolalism by Arch-deacon Jeffreys, pp. 23, 37, 2«, 



II 



311 

forms and public duties, rites, and cerennonies, they are 
to possess the Spirit of God, and I know no nnore fatal 
and deadly opiate, that can be administered to them. 
This is the reh'gion the Oxford Tractators are attempt- 
ing to introduce, and to establish, in the Church of Eng- 
land. It is an importation from Rome, and sorry, in- 
deed, am I, that it should have found friends and patrons 
in our own country. Your zealous attachment to 
Episcopacy, and your exclusive notions of the church, 
have carried you far into it, and will, if not corrected, 
inevitably rank you among its advocates. I speak not 
rashly or unadvisedly. I have endeavored, to compare 
the features of your system, as ihey are set forth in 
your discourse, with those of tlie high church men — the 
reh^ion vou so much laud, w^ith the Oxfordism of the 
English divines, and I am surprised at the resemblance. 
I do not say in all respects; but that it is discernible in 
so many. Lest I may be suspected of erroneously 
judging in the premises, I extract, from the notes which 
Mr. Smyth has appended to his lectures on the Apos- 
tolic succession, the view which Bishop Meade, of Ya., 
has given of this system, in his sermon at the consecra- 
tion of Bishop Elliot, (Washington, 1S41, app., ch. ix., 
p. 93.) Their belief, on this subject, (the sacerdotal 
office,) which, he says, they magnify beyond all bounds, 
seems to be contained in the following pi'opositions : 

"1st. That before Jesus Christ left the world He 
breathed His Holy Spirit into the Apostles, giving them 
the power of transmitting this precious git^t, to others, 
by prayer, and the imposition of hands ; that the Apos- 
ties did so transmit it to others, and they again tooth- 



312 

ers ; and ihat in this way, it has been preserved in the 
world to the present day. 

*^2d. That the gift thus transmitted, empowers its 
possessors: 1st, to admit into, and to exclude from, the 
mysterious commutiion, called, in scripture the king- 
dom of heaven, any one whom they may judge deserv- 
ing of it, and this, with the assurance, that all whom 
they admit or excIuJe on earth, and externally, are 
admitted or excluded in heaven, spiritually, in the sight 
of God and IkjIv angels ; that it empowers men to 
bless, and to intercede for those who are within His 
kingdom, in a sense, in which no other man can bless 
or intercede ; 2d, to make the cucharistic bread and 
wine the body and blood of Christ, in the sense in 
which our Lord made it so : 3d, to enable delegates to 
perform this great miracle, by ordaining them with im- 
position of hands.*'* 

The most superficial reader cannot fuil, to see how 
closely anil strikiniily the views of the ministry you 
teach in your sermon, coincide with the above ; nor to 
discover, that the very same results, which Bishop 
Meade deduces from the Oxford system, flow legiti- 
mately from yours. ''According to this view of the 
subject,'' in the language of this Episcopal divine, **to 
dispense vvith Episcopal ordination is to be regarded, 
not as a breach of order merely, or a deviation from 
Apostolic precedent, but as a surrender of the christian 
priesthood, a rejection of all the powers, which Christ 
instituted Episcopacy to perpetuate ; and the attempt 
to institute any other form of ordination for it, or to 
SEEK COMMUNION WITH Christ, thvougk any non-Epis- 

*Smyth's Lectures on Apos. Sue, p. 407. 



313 

copal associaiiony is to be regarded not as schism mere- 
ly, but AS AN IMPOSSIBILITY.^ 

It is not difficult to see, what must, of necessity, be 
the tendency, and result, of such views of the ministry 
of the gospel. They raise a wall of partition, high as 
Heaven, around the Episcopal Church, and do most 
effectually prevent, all ministerial and religious inter- 
course, with christians of other denominations. I see 
their operation, in the course which you pursue ; and 
want no clearer, or more decisive, evidence cf their 
error, than the spirit of exclusiveness, which they en- 
gender, and which is so rife in your Churches. You 
doubtless think, that you are glorifying God, and will 
meet his approbation, by giving way to its dictates, and 
by refusing to recognize, the ministerial character, and 
office, of the preachers of righteousness in other de- 
nominations. But you, certainly, are not prepared to 
say, that your convictions on this subject, are 'prima 
facie evidence, of the correctness of this spirit of exclu- 
siveness, and will exonerate you from all guilt, in the 
sight of God, incurred, by casting out your brethren of 
other denominations from His Church. Peter verily 
thought himself to be actuated by a spirit, of which 
God would approve, when he shrunk from all contact, 
with what he accounted common and unclean; but the 
Lord reproved his exclusiveness. 

You admit that the Lord may have true followers in 
other denominations. How then, I ask, can you escape 
from the obligations of brotherhood, which bind you to 
them, and from the duties you owe your Master, in rela- 
tion to them that are the members of His own mystical 

*Idem. 

1 27 



314 

body 1 He has said, that whoso offendeth one of thesu 
little ones, it were better a mill-stone were lied round 
his neck, and he cast into the sea. Have you never 
thought, that you, and the ministry of your church — 
who refuse ministerial intercourse with, and all recog- 
nition of, non-Episcopal denominations — are in great 
danger of meeting this rebuke f Where did He ever 
give you any right thus to contract yourself into your 
own church, and lo treat all the world beside you, as 
heatlicn men and publicans ? How docs He rebuke the 
pride, the arrogance, ihe preposterousness of such a 
course of conduct, l)y the abundant proof He gives of 
His presence and blessing among christians of other 
denominations ? And who are your ** Episcopal Bish- 
ops,'' and Priests, and Deacons, that you cannot enter — 
and cordially commune and co-operate with those — 
among whom dwells the Spirit of God ? Are you made 
of purer mould, of choicer metal ? too highly honored 
as the favorites of Heaven ? too lofty in your dignified 
Church relationship ? to recognize a Presbyterian, Bap- 
tist, Methodist minister, as your brother? or even the 
poor, wretched and ignoble common people of other! 
denominations, except as the Jews did the Gentiles, U 
make proselytes? We are free to confess, that sucll 
treatment is painful to our sensibilities. But we havi 
abundant consolation under it. The Lord has admor 
ished us, not to be dismayed, nor to revenge such treat-i 
ment. ** Your brethren," says He, '' that hated you^^ 
that cast you out for my names saJce, said. Let thI 
Lord be glorified, but He shall appear to your joyjj 
and they shall be ashamed," 

We will not reciprocate such treatment. Instead of 



315 



magnifying our points of difTerence, and of consulting 
our prejudices against your fornus and government, we 
will rather look upon things in which we agree, and la- 
bor to advance the cause of our blessed Master, our 
common Christianity, and the salvation of immortal 
souls. We would much rather decline to speak, and 
if possible, even to think, of things in which we differ, 
and occupy our hearts with those in which w^e agree. 
Instead of lauding our Church, and its forms — how- 
ever excellent we may think them, and strongly we 
are attached to them — and in our social intercourse, 
instead of interlarding our discourse with panegyrics 
on our religion, we would carefully avoid every thing 
that might excite envy, and jealousy, and tend to se- 
parate. Just as it would be mo?^t unseemly, and insuf- 
ferable, for a man to say that he loved all his neigh- 
bors' families, and would not breathe a w^ord against 
them, but ever and anon, in his intercourse with them, 
would be boasting of his own, pr(;cl.iiming that no chil- 
dren were like his, no domestic economy, no interests, 
no social and family ties, like his, so do we esteem it, 
to be extolling our Prcshytei inn organization, and there- 
fore carefully abstain from all boastful laudations of our 
own church, and atten^pis to proselyte to our pecuHari- 
ties. 

We claim similar trcatiiii:. rain. It is because 

we do not find it reriprora i 
are most ungraciously (ic i 
God's house, that I havr i 
spoken, alike to your 'i 
Believing that the cliu i < 
love^Jesus Christ, rej ^ 



ui. on the contrary, 
lie, and a place, in 
jisiian liberty, and 
.) your conscience, 
prises all that truly 
1 si as, and obey His 



316 

commands, irrespectively of their ecclesiastical relation 
or visible Church organization, I have been impelled to 
discharge, what 1 feel to be my duty to you, and bear 
my testimony against the dangerous tendency of the 
doctrine and spirit you inculcate. If you will magnify 
your Episcopal office, I shall prefer to exalt Jesus Christ, 
and search for His image where ** there is neither Greek, 
nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, 
Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all in all.'' 

GEO. DUFFIELD. 



ERRATA. 

Page 74. For "but a Ilisliop," in Uic 8(h and Otli lines from tbc lop, read "jix 

" 01. ►Sliikc out "nr»^ Aarr," from Ihr l"2ili linr. 

** 103. For •' a historian," in llir I'lili n\u\ HUli line*, rrnd ** aX nisTOKiAll.*' 

'* 11*2. For •' Oriclmcli," Iniho :iii and 4lli line, reiid " CiRiL^Bicii." 

•* 120. For '* nor." in the ^^ilt line, rrnd '* ant)." 

'' 142. For '• Whill«*y," in l*2ili linr. rr.id *' Wliilhy." 

" 144. For '* Auntim," in '2:y\ \\nt\ rrad " Aihtin." 

'* 15*2. For " Thoplnjlnrt,'" in '-tli line, read " TnrorYiiLAET. 

" 101. For ** Hipliop,'' in '20th lino, rend •• Bisiiop.'' 

" 203. In 2;}d line, inlrodnre " in*" hetore " oU." 

** 23G. For 490, in the l*2ih line, read 31X). 



EPISCOPAL piSHOPS, 

THE SUCCESSORS OF 
THE APOSTLES. 



THE 

SERMON 

PREACHED IN ST. PAUL'S CIICRCH, DETROIT, 

ON SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1842, 

AT THE ORDINATION OF THE 

REVEREND MONTGOMERY SCHUYLER, 

TO THE PRIESTHOOD, 

AND 

SABIN HOUGH AND EDWARD HODGKIN, 

TO THE DEACONSHIP. 



RIGHT REVEREND SAMUEL ALLEN McCOSKRY, D. D. 

PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 



DETROIT: 

MORGAN BATES, PRINTER. 
1842. 



The following sermoii was prepared under ihc pres- 
sure of the nnany cares and anxieties connected with 
the Apostolic office, in addition to those incident to the 
Rectorship of a large parish. The author had not the 
most remote idea of publishing it, when it was delivered. 
But at the earnest solicitation of the clergy then pre- 
sent, and many of the Laity of his own parish, and of 
reputable strangers who witnessed the transfer of a part 
of the Ministry, which the Great Head of the Church 
intrusted to His Apostles and their successors, he has 
consented to give it to the public at large. He has 
been, so far as possible, most scrupulously careful to 
avoid using any words calculated to irritate or wound 
christians wiio hold different vicw^s — but he hopes with- 
out any compromise of the truth. The subject is of 
vital importance, and concerns the eternal welfare of 
the human race. The author lias thus considered it, 
and most fully believes, if the positions advanced can- 
not be sustained — ^Christ has left no Chirch on 

THE EARTH AND NO MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION* 



I BELIEVE ONE CaTUOLIC AND ArOSTOLIC CnUnCH, 

JSTicene Creed. 

From all false doctrlne, heresy and schism ; 
from hardness of heart, and contempt of thy 
word and commandment, 

Good Lord, deliver i>. 

The Litanij. 



SERMON. 



MS MY FATHER HATH SENT ME, EVEN SO SEND I YOU/^ 

St. JTohn, XX, 21* 



Every one who has been a close observer of pass- 
ing events, must be convinced that seldom, if ever, has 
there been exhibited a more anxious spirit of inquiry 
in reference to the true church of Christ, than at the pre- 
sent day. The time has gone by, when men would be 
satisfied with harsh and coarse invective, against those 
who rejoiced in the possession of an uninterrupted suc- 
cession of the priesthood of which Christ was the Head, 
and which he established to continue to the end of the 
world. They have grown weary of the continued di- 
visions and countless number of sects which have 
sprung up, all w'arring against each other; and are now 
seeking for some resting place, where they can escape 
such agitations, and feel secure under the broad prom- 
ise our Saviour made to His Church, the gates of hell 
shall not prevail against it. Men have endeavored to 
repress this spirit ; and have made the most exciting 
appeals to popular prejudice ; and under the specious 
name of religious freedom, have, in some degree, kept 
back the claims of the Church of Christ. But however 
1* 



6 

successful these means may have been in former days, 
they are beginning to lose their power, and the chris- 
tian world highly excited by the wide-spread ruin 
which schism, (separation from the true Church of 
Christ,) has effected, is anxiously and boldly inquiring 
where and what is the Church of Christ. 

The ruinous idea, that men could associate together, 
and adopt such rules and government for themselves, 
as may suit their tastes, and still be entitled to lay claim 
to be a part of the Church of Christ, is rapidly passing 
away. Men have been convinced, from sad experience 
of its fallacy, that however well adapted such organi- 
zation may be to secure their civil comforts, yet they 
have not, and will not answer to promote, either their 
religious comfort or freedom. 

The Saviour has not left his household, the Church, 
to be new-modelled by the ever changing opinions of 
men, or the eternal interests of millions of the human 
race, to be determined by a casting vote. His church is 
not of man's forming — but has been established by him- 
self, and is regulated by well defined and well estab- 
lished laws. He is the Head and permanent Ruler 
thereof, and although now removed from sight and 
seated on his Mediatorial throne, yet he governs and 
regulates this Church, or Kingdom, (as it is frequently 
called,) by his constituted agents, to whom he has 
committed the very same authority which he received 
from his father, and with whom he* has promised. to 
to be to the end of the world. 

That this is the case, can easily be ascertained from 
the word of God. In it we find that the Church is con- 

* See Mat., xxvii cliap., 19 and 20 v. 



stantly spoken of as a permanent body, as one — and 
its continued unity prayed for by the Saviour, its Head. 
St. Paul says, He purchased a Church with his own 
blood. This Church so purchased, is called his Body — 
his Spouse — the Bride — the LamVs wife, and Christ 
is the Head of the body, the Church. And again, there 
is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one 
hope of your callings one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 
one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through 
all and in you all. Such declarations at once settle 
the point, that the Church is not of human organiza- 
tion, but was established by Christ himself — that it can- 
not be altered in any way by man, either on the plea 
of necessity, or of supposed advantage to be gained. 
Nothing is left, as you perceive, to men, in reference to 
the organization of this Kingdom. This has been set- 
tled and permanently fixed by the Saviour himself. 
They have nothing to do but bacome subjects of this 
Kingdom, obey its laws, and promote its interests. 

It becomes then a question of vast importance to as- 
certain — to w^hom Christ has committed the govern- 
ment of this Kingdom ] had they successors 1 and what 
are their powers and duties X 

1st. To whom Christ has committed the government 
of his Kingdom — the Church. That he transfer- 

j red the power he received from God his Father, the 
words of the text most fully declare. ^^5 niy Father 
hath sent me, even so send I you. Every thing that 
could be possessed by a mere human being, was given 
by the Saviour. He was, as the Apostle declares, the 
Head of the body — consequently this headship was 

i transferred, and all the power necessary to preserve 



8 

and regulate the body. For if the power to preserve 
and regulate the body be not transferred with the head- 
ship of the body, the body itself nnust cease to exist ; 
and of course the Church of Christ comes to an end. 
This cannot be. It must follow then, that as Christ is 
the permanent Ruler and Head of this body now in 
heaven, so are those to whom he transferred this pow- 
er, permanent rulers and heads on the earth, for he 
transferred the earthly power over his Church. A& 
my Father hath sent me^ even so send I you. 

The individuals who hold and exercise the office thus 
given, may and do change, but the office created has 
not, nor can it change, so long as the body, the church, 
exists, or until the power granted be taken back. But 
the Church has, and will exist, until it becomes such a 
Church as Christ designs it to be, and until the gospel 
is proclaimed through it to all the world. For as St, 
Paul declares, Christ a/so loved the Church, and gave 
himself fur it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with 
the washing of icater by the word, that he might present 
it to Iwnself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrin- 
kle, or any such thing ; but that it should be holy and 
without blemish. So that you perceive, the Church 
is to continue until it becomes a glorious Church, not 
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing. And the 
same Apostle, speaking of the introduction of the Gen- 
tiles into the Church, says : to the intent that now unto 
the principalities and powei'S, in heavenly places^ might 
be known by the Church, the manifold wisdom of God. 
It is to continue until the gospel, through the Church, 
is preached to every creature. Nor has the power, 
(given by the Saviour) been taken back. On the con- 



trary, it is to continue to the end of the world, for our 
Saviour declared to those to whom he gave this pow- 
er, go 2/e, therefore^ and teach all nations, hajptizing them 
in the name of the Father^ and of the Son, and of ilte 
Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsa- 
ever I have commanded you, and lo ! I am with you al- 
ways, even unto the end of the world. But all nations 
have not yet been taught and baptized — and all those 
to whom Christ gave this power, have died. It follows 
then, that the power is to exist until this is accomplish- 
ed, and if so, it must be found in a certain class of 
men, for the promise is made, that the Saviour will be 
with them to the end of the world. 

The question is now fairly presented, to whom was 
this power transferred 1 To none other than the 
Apostles. They were selected by the Saviour to be 
with him, as his constant attendants and ministers to 
preach the gospel. They had also power to baptize, 
for it is said by St. John, that Jesus himself baptized 
not, but his disciples. This was their first commission. 
Afterwards they received authority to commemorate 
our Lord's sacrifice on the cross, when he directed 
them at his last supper, to do as he had done; that is, 
to bless the elements of bread and wine in remem- 
^brance of him. This was their second commission. 

This was again enlarged prior to the ascension of our 
Saviour. He then declared to them, that all power 
was given to him in heaven and on earth, and there- 
fore none could question or deny his right to transfer 
or delegate his authority. He therefore said to the 
Apostles, as my Father hath sent me, even so send I yoiu 
And when he had said ihis^ he breathed on them, and 



10 

^aitli unto them^ receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose soever 
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose so- 
ever sins ye retain^ they are retained. 

In this transaction they were raised up to the very 
same office which Christ himself held. I mean that 
which belonged to him in liis human nature as head and 
governor of the Church. They were to supply his 
place in this respect. Full power was given to them, 
viz : the eleven, (for Judas had fallen from his Apos- 
tleship,) to set in order the things that were wanting 
in the Church, and in short, to do every thing w^hich 
Christ would have done, had he continued on the earth. 
And you will observe that the Apostles were admitted 
to the exercise of this power in the very same manner 
in which our Lord entered upon the duties of his office. 
He did not enter upon his duties as a public teacher, 
until the Holy Ghost fell upon him and annointed him 
for the office. Hence St. Paul says, 770 man taketh 
this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as 
was Aaron, So also Christ glorified not himself to he 
made a high priest, hut he that said unto him, thou art 
my son, to-day have I begotten thee. 

There was an actual and visible setting apart of 
Christ for this ollice. It was equally so in the case of 
the Apostles. They were not to enter upon the duties 
of the office which Christ had transferred to them, un- 
til they had received in a full and open manner, the 
Holy Ghost. Prior to the ascension of the Saviour, 
tJiey had received the power to act as Apostles, but not 
{;he gfls necessary to fit them for discharging the duties 
connected with the office. The former, viz : thepoiver, 
^ynsgwen, when Christ breulhed on thena and said, re- 



11 

ceiveyeihe Hobj Ghost — the latter viz : the gifts, on the 
(Jay of Pentecost. Hence they vverecomaianded not to 
depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the 
Father, which, sailh Christ, ye have heard of me. The 
Holy Ghost had descended upon the Saviour at his bap- 
tism, and he declared that the Apostles should also be 
baptized with the Holy Ghost 7iot many days hence,, 
which took place as I have already remarked, on the 
day of Pentecost. 

Here then we have it most solemnly determined, that 
no man could take such an office upon himself. Christ 
did not do so. He was set apart in an open and visi- 
ble manner by his Father. The Apostles did not do 
so. Their power was enlarged on three different oc- 
casions, and each time by the Saviour himseh^. And 
when they received the full power wdiich Christ pos- 
sessed, it was done in the most solemn manner, espe- 
cially when the ministerial gifts were bjestowed, so that 
every one could at once see, that they had indeed re- 
ceived the promise of the Father — the Holy Ghost. 
They then commence to preach the gospel, and began 
to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave them ut- 
terance. And to place the power which the Saviour 
transferred to them, beyond all dispute, and that everj'* 
one might recognize the right to rule and govern the 
Church, he further declared to them» 1 appoint unto 
you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me. 

Here then v»'e have the foundation of the Christian 
' Ministry. This solemn transfer of our Saviour's pow- 
er to the Apostles, to govern and rule the Church, was 
the broad seal to their commission to preach the gos- 
j ' pel, and under wiiich they were to go into all the world, 



12 

sustained and cheered by his promise, lo! I am with you 
always^ even unto the end of the world. And this pow- 
er was not transferred to any others. The seventy 
who had been sent out by the Saviour to preach, had 
no part in it. They were not mentioned, as their com- 
mission had expired prior to the crucifixion of Christ 
But you will observe, that so long as the Saviour exer- 
cised the office of High Priest, and before he transfer- 
red it to the Apostles, immediately preceding his as- 
cension, there were three grades in the ministry, as 
was the case in the Church under the Jewish dispensa- 
tion. Christ — the High Priest ; the Apostles — the 
Priests ; and the seventy — the Lcviles. The Apos- 
tles did not reach the highest grade, so long as the Sa- 
viour exercised any ministerial authority on the earth, 
but were raised up to it as he was about returning to 
heaven. They then stood as his representatives, and 
arranged the ministry, as will hereafter appear, after 
the model which ac himself had followed, viz : in ac- 
cordance with the Ministry of the Church as it existed 
prior to his coming. 

This point then is clearly settled : that the Apostles, 
held the only ministry which was of Christ. Not only 
the power to rule and govern the Church, but of course 
it must also follow, to continue the same power. If 
not, there never has been any authorized ministry in 
the Church, and all who profess to be commissioned 
as embassadors of Christ, are gross impostors. There 
can be no escape from such a conclusion. For I have 
endeavored to show you on the authority of the word 
of God, that Christ gave the power which he had re- 
ceived of the Father, only to the Apostles. 



18 

Which brings me to the consideration of the second 
question. 

Had the Apostles successors 1 This I w ill attempt 
to prove. It is a question involving the eternal inter- 
ests of millions — and if decided in the negative, must 
destroy the christian ministry under whatever name it 
may be called. For J have endeavored to show you 
from the word of God, that the Apostles were the only 
individuals to Avhom Christ imparted the powder he had 
received from his Father. If it died with them, and 
the promise of his presence to be with them to the 
'end of the world, is to be limited to them ; then all 
who call themselves ministers of Christ are not only 
deprived of all power or right to preach, but also the 
only comfort which could sustain and cheer them in 
their arduous, and oftentimes thankless office — the pre- 
sence of the Saviour through the influence of his Spirit. 
But God be thanked, we arc not left to doubt on this 
all important question. We have the transfer of all 
V ministerial power most clearly set forth, as given by 
the Saviour to the Apostles; and to prove that such an 
office was needed to bring sinners to the know^lcdge of 
the truth as it is in Jesus, we have also the record of the 
feestowment of ministerial ability to fit them for its du- 
ties, given on the day of Pentecost, w^hen they spake 
as the spirit gave them utterance. If such an office 
was necessary then, it is equally so now, Thousand9 
are still ignorant of the great salvation which our bles-? 
sed Redeemer came to purchase, and thousands who 
liave heard the^lad tidings, are to be persuaded to be- 
lieve through the foolishness of preaching. The mere 
fact that the Apostles also received power to work 
2 



14 

miracles, and actually did so, in no way aflecls the ar- 
gument. This was necessary to estabh'sh the truth of 
Christianity, and put to silence the ignorance of fool- 
ish men. But when this power was withdrawn, the 
power to act as the representatives of Christ, was not at 
ail affected, for Chi ist's promise was not limited, but ex- 
tended to the end of the world. 

This promise must have at once satisfied the mioda 
of the Apostles, that the office they had received from 
the Saviour, was not to cease — that it was to continue 
until the glad tidings of salvation had been conveyed 
to the ends of the earth. They could not live to this 
period, and therefore all doubt as to their right of trans- 
fer must have been removed from their minds. Bui 
mistake on this subject, was imj)ossiblc. For they not 
only received the Holy Ghost at the time when the 
Saviour breathed on them, and said, receive ye the Holy 
Ghost; and also on the day of Pentecost, to fit them 
for the performance of the duties of the office, but the 
Saviour promised to give ihem the continual influences 
of this same spirit to keep them from doing any act 
which would be wrong, and also to lead them into all 
truth. To direct them not only in preaching the gos- 
pel, but to enable them to make such arrangements, as 
would secure the preaching of the gospel to every crea- 
ture on the earth. 

What then did they do to this end, and what evi- 
dence have wc that they transferred their powers ? 
One of the very first acts they did after they received 
the Apostolic office, was to transfer the very same power 
they had received from Christ. One of their number 
had fallen from the high position on which Christ had 



16 

placed him. He had betrayed his Master, and had 
gone to his own place. He had never received the full 
Apostolic commission, but as St. Peter observed, he 
was numhered with them and obtained part of this min- 
istry. The fall of Judas was in accordance with a pro- 
phecy uttered by David several hundred years prece- 
ding the event, let his habitation be desolate, and let no 
man dwell therein, and his bishophric let another take. 
So that you perceive his fall was foreseen, and at the 
same time a clear direction was given, that his place 
should be supplied. The declaration contained in the 
Psalms must have been long known to the Apostles, 
and although they may not have had the most remote 
I idea of the manner of its application, yet when the event 
j took place, no difficulty could have been felt in apply- 
ing it to Judas. That this was the case is evident from 
the address which St. Peter made to the disciples. He 
at once referred them to the prophecy uttered by Da- 
vid, and applied it to Judas. He stood up in the midst 
of them and said, men and brethren, this scripture must 
needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the 
mouth of David spake before, concerning Judas, which 
was guide to them that took Jesus. 

They therefore, under the guidance of the Spirit 
which was to lead them into all truth, appointed two, 
Joseph, called Barsabas, who was sur named Justus, and 
Matthias. And they prayed, and said, thou Lord, which 
knowest the hearts of all 7nen, shew whether of these two 
thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry 
and Apostles/lip, from which Judas, by transgression, 
fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave 
forth their lots ; and the lot fell upon Matthias ; and he 



16 

was numbered with the eleven Apostles. It is singular 
that the Apostles should have thus acted, unless they 
beHeved that Christ had given to them the power ta 
continue the very same office, they had received from 
Him. And more especially, that they should so soon 
appoint an Apostle in the place of Judas, when there 
was no need to increase their number, if there were to 
be no succession. It seems highly probable that this 
subject must have been brought before them by the 
Saviour himself, on those occasions when he had retired 
with them from the multitudes which surrounded him^ 
to converse w^ith them, and give them instructions 
in reference to the Kingdom — the Church, over which 
they were to be placed. This supposition is strength- 
ened by the manner in which it was done. St. Peter 
mentioned it; and referred to the fulfillment of the pro- 
phecy contained in the Psalms, as at once demanding of 
them some action, in reference to the vacancy occa- 
sioned by the treachery of Judas. All the Apostles at 
once consented to it. There w^ere no arguments pre- 
sented by any of their number, either for or against thu 
proceeding. Nei ther is there any evidence to show that 
they thought the proposition admitted of any doubt or 
hesitancy on their part. Now% how could this be so, 
unless they fully believed that Christ had given them 
the power to give to others the power they had re- 
ceived ? And unless they had received s|>ecial instruc- 
tions on this subject from himself? He must have 
spoken of the treachery of Judas, and also of the posi- 
tion which he occupied, and if so, it is reasonable to in- 
fer that he gave them instructions to supply his place. 
For it cannot be supposed for one moment, that the 



19 

Saviour would transfer so great an office as he himself 
had received from his Father, to feeble and short- 
sighted men, without giving them instructions, as to 
the manner in which its duties were to be performed, 
and more especially, whether it could be transferred to 
others. 

But they could not err in a matter which would for- 
,ever after give character to the government of the 
Church of Christ. The Spirit of Christ had been pro- 
mised to guide them into all trut/i, and to keep them 
from every error in discharging their official duties. If 

.this be not admitted, and this act of the Apostles consid- 
ered as unauthorized, we must come necessarily to these 
two conckisions — that there cannot be implicit reliance 
placed upon any one of their acts — and next, that St. 
Luke, the writer of the ** Acts of the Apostles," could 
not have written under the inspiration of the Spirit, or 
he never would have recorded an unwarrantable act, 
and palmed it off on the christian world, as authorized. 
It was his duty to have mentioned that the Apostles 
acted unadvisedly, and that they had no right to trans- 
fer the authority which they had received from the Sa- 
viour. For his silence and of course his implied recog^ 
nition of this act as authorized, has led to the contin- 
uation of this very office, with all its ordinary powers, 

j from that time down to the present hour, as you will 
hereafter see. 

But this cannot be. Few persons are willing to re- 
ject the *'Acts of the Apostles,'' and therefore, they 
must recognize the transfer of the Apostolic authority 
to Matthias. If so, the position is established, that the 
Apostles had successors. For if the power received 
3* 



18 

from Christ, be rightly transferred to o\r:, it U right- 
ly transferred to others. For the Saviour fixed no 
limit, but expressly promised to be with their succes- 
sors to the end of the world, which promise, as I have 
already observed, is a clear intimation that the office 
was to continue. 

In addition to this, we find that when the liolv Ghost 
was given to the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, to 
qualify them for discharg!r>g the duties? of llie oflice 
they had received from Christ, prior to his ascension,- 
Matthias was equally honored. This was the distinc! 
recognition of the right to transfer their office. Fof 
ministerial gifts were given to Matthias, precisely as 
they were given to the other Apostles, and this would 
not have been the case unless ministerial power had 
been equally conferred. 

After this, he was numbered wiih the other Aposr- 
tics, and spoken of precisely as l/icy were when they 
spake with other tongues, ^5 tlie spirit gave (hem utter- 
ance. But Piter standing up with the ftlevex, If ted up 
his voice and said unto them, S^c. Again, Matthias h 
numbered with the twelve, sometime preceding (he 
conversion of St. Paul, as we find in the sixth chapter 
of the Acts of the Apostles. Then the twim.ve called 
the multitude of the disciples unto them, ( nd said, it is 
not reason that we should leave the word of God and 
serve tables. 

Nor can it be supposed that ?>Iatthias was only or- 
dained 10 be a witness w^ith the Apostles, of the reSuiv 
redion. If this had been the case, that he was only to 
be a witness, and nothing more, there w^as no need to 
ordain hjm. 'For, according to the statement of St. 



IS 

retcr, he had acconipanied with them all the time that 
the Lord Jesus vjent in and out aviong them. Besides, 
St. Paul himself, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, 
numbers Matthias amongst the TvrcLVE, and also states 
that several hundred were loitnesses of Christ's resur- 
rection, who never were Apostles. Proving most con- 
clusivel}% that the mere fact of having seen Christ af* 
ter he rose from the dead, could not have been the on- 
ly treason why Matthias was raised to the Aposlleship. 
Speaking of Christ, he says, he was buried^ and rose 
again the third day, according to the scripturcSf and wa? 
seen of Cephas , then of the twelve, after that he i^as 
seen (f above five hundred brethren at once ; cf whom the 
greater part remain unto this present, but some are fall- 
en asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of 
all the Apostles, And last of all, he was seen of mf, also, 
as of one born out of due time, St. Paul, therefore, re- 
cognizes Matthias as a true Apostle, as having been 
properly set apart for that office, and if so, the Apos- 
tles had, and were to liave, successors. 

This, however, is not the only instance recorded in 
the scriptures. St. Paul, who was callcd-to the Apos- 
lleship by the Saviour, and exercised the same power 
which had been given to the other Apostles, also trans- 
ferred the office he had received. He placed Timothy 
as Apostle over the Church at Ephesus, and Titus over 
the Church in Crete. They had supreme authority to 
rule and govern the Church, and also, to set apart El- 
ders and Deacons — inferior and subordinate ?>linisters. 
So that v;e arrive at another point, viz : that the Apos- 
tohc office w\as not only to continue in the Church ; but 
was to be suprem.e. There w^as no other ministry of 



20 

Christ, as I have already shown ; all power was cen- 
tered in them ; yet ihey, by the guidance of the Spirit, 
transferred their office to others, and also created infe- 
rior grades in the ^Ministry, with limited powers, de- 
riving those powers directly from themselves. 

That St. Paul transferred the office he received from 
the Saviour, to Timothy, and gave him superior pow- 
er and control over the Elders and Deacons, all must 
admit who are familiar with the word of God. But I 
proceed to the [)roof. St. Paul says, the charge that I 
commit unto thee, son Timothy, that thou mayest know how 
thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which 
is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of 
the Truth. The Apostle places him over the Church 
atEphcsus. and gives him the power to ordain Elders 
and Deacons in the Churches, as is evident from his in- 
structions to him. The things thai thou hast heard of 
iMK among many xcitncsscs, the same commit thou to 
faithful men, icho shall be able to teach others also. And 
to guide him in the performance of this duty, describes, 
at length, the qualifications that all should have, to be 
fitted for these offices. He says,-^ a bishop (the name 
then given to the second grade in the ministry; the 
highest grade being designated by the term Apostle,) 
must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, so- 
ber, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, 
not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, 
but patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one that ruleth 
well his own house, having his children in subjection with 
all gravity, [For if a man know not how to rule his 
own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God.) 

*lTira., iilcliap., from v. 2. 



21 

J^Tot a novice, lest, heivg lifted up with 'pride, he fall into 
condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must have a 
good report of them who are without ; lest he fall into 
repj'oach and the snare of the devil Likewise must the 
deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much 
wine, not greedy of filthy lucre : holding the mystery of 
the faith in a pure conscience. And h.t these, also, first 
be proved ; then let them use the office of a deacon, being 
found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, 
not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the 
deacons be the husbands of one wfe, ruling their children 
and their own houses well. For they that have used the 
office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good de- 
gree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Chiist 
Jesus, The ordination of both Bishops (or Elders) and 
Deacons was committed entirely to Timothy, for the 
Apostle further writes to him, lay hands suddenly on 
no man. That these offices were parts of the Ministry 
* which Christ gave to the Apostles and their successors, 
none can doubt, when they remember the charge which 
St. Paul gives to the Elders of the Cliiurch at Ephesus, 
prior to the placing of Timothy over them as their 
Apostle. In this charge they are addressed as Pastors 
(not Laymen) as you will hereafter see. And that the 
Deacons were also clothed with ministerial powers of a 
limited degree is evident, from the fact, that St. Ste- 
phen, and St. Philip, both Deacons, preached, and the 
latter baptized as we learn from the Acts of the Apos- 
tles. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, 
and preached Christ unto them. When they believed 
Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of 
Godf and the name of Jesus Christ, they ivere baptized, 



22 

both men and women. And that this office was greatly 
inferior to the Apostolic office which Timothy held, is 
evident from the fact, that two of ihe Apostles were 
sent, viz : St. Peter and St. John, to Samaria, who when 
they wore come down jirnycd for them, that they might 
receive the Holy Ghost {for as yet he was not fallen upon 
any of them ; only they were baptized in the name of the 
Lord Jesus) then laid they their hands on theniy and 
they received the Holy Ghost. 

But the power of ordination was not the only power 
which Timothy received from St. Paul, which proves 
ihat Timothy succeeded to the Apostleship, and wasof 
course superior in point of office to the Elders and 
Deacons, but he had also the power to hear charges 
against the Ministers over whom he was placed, and 
of course give his opinion as to their guilt or innocence, 
and not only so, but to rebuke them before the church, 
if found guilty. St. Paul says, against an Elder re- 
ceive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 
Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear. 
And in reference to certain doctrines that were taught 
at E|)hesus, he informs Timothy of them, and tells him 
to charge some that thcij teach no other doctrine^ than 
that which St. Paul himself had made known to them. 

But the proof is still stronger that Timothy succeed- 
ed to the Apostleship, and that this office was superior 
to all others. If we now refer to St. PauTs charge to 
the Elders that were settled at Ephesus, prior to the 
time when Timothy was placed over them as their 
Apostle, or as their Bishop, (as the individuals who 
succeeded to the office were so coiled, as I shall here- 
after prove,) we will find that no power of ordination 



23 

was given to ihcm, nor any power over one another. 
St. Paul's charge to the Elders of Ephesus, is contained 
in the 20th chnptcr of the Acts of the Apostles. He 
says, lake heed therefore unto yourselves, and to a!l the 
Jlock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, 
to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased v:ith 
his own blood. For I know this, that after my df'parting, 
shall grievous wolves enter in among you not sparing the 
flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking 
perverse things to dravj away disciples after the?n. How 
different this charge is from thai which the same Apos- 
tle gave to Timothy when he conferred upon him the 
Apostleship, and placed him over the Churches at 
Ephesus. The Elders arc addressed as a body, and 
those duties only enjoined upon them that relate to the 
exercise of the Pastoral office : such as feeding the 
(Jhurch, that is, nourishing the members with the bread 
of life. And in addition, to be watchful over them- 
selves, lest some might be led away from the faith, 
speaking perverse things. . But in his address to Timo- 
thy, he speaks to him individually — grants to him the 
power of ordination — gives to him the power to admin- 
ister discipline — to rebuke those who might speak per- 
verse things, and places him over all the Elders who 
were at Ephesus. 

We have then another instance in which the Apos- 
tles imparted to others the very same right and powers 
which Christ had given to them, and which proves that 
( the Apostolic office was to continue to the end of the 
world, in accordance with the declaration of the Sa- 
viour : lo I I am with you always, even unto the end of 
the world. 



24 

The next instance I would notice, to prove that the 
Apostles innparlcd their office to others, is lliat of Ti- 
tus, who was placed over the Church in Crete by St. 
Paul, as their Apostle or Bishop. He says, to Titus 
mine own son, after the common faith, grace, mercy and 
peace, from God the Father, and the I^rd Jesus Christ 
our Saviour. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that 
thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, 
and ordain elders in every city, as 1 had appointed thee. 
You no doubt, are familiar with the fact, that there were 
one hundred cities in the Island of Crete, and yet St. 
Paul gives the charge of every Church to Titus. And 
he gave him not only the power of ordination, but also 
of removal from the Church, of all who had departed 
from the faith. Jl man that is a heretic, after the first 
and second admonition, reject, knowing that he that is 
such, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned oj him- 
self. These are powers which were never given to any 
but Apostles. The Elders never exercised any super- 
vision one over anotln^r. But Titus had both these 
powers conferred u|)on him by the Apostle Paul. Of 
course he must have been superior to the Elders, and, 
if so, it proves conclusively that he received the very 
same [)Owcrs and lights that the Apostles received 
from the Saviour himself. I might also mention the 
fact that Barnabas was raised to the Apostleship, as we 
find in the 14th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. 

Here it may not be out of place to mention that some 
have supposed that the power of ordination was also 
exercised by the Elders, and if so, it would in a great 
degree do away with the necessity for the continuance 
of the Apostolic office. That it was only an office 



25 

created for specific and limited purposes. The passage 
of scripture relied on to sustain this position, is found 
in the first epistle to Timothy, and is in these words, 
J^eglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee 
by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the pres- 
bytery. Even if it be admitted that this passage sus- 
tained the position advanced, and that Timothy was 
ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presby- 
j tery, it by no means follows, that therefore there was 
no difference between the Apostles and Elders. For 
you will remember in his second epistle to Timothy, 
St. Paul says, wherefore I put tfiee in rememhrance that 
, thou stir up the gift of God ichich is in thee, by the 
I PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS. So that you pcrccive that 
• St. Paul, an Apostle, was present, and was the ordain- 
er, and that the presbytery only signified their assent 
i to the act by the laying on of their hands, as they do 
'in our own Church at the present day. But it is con- 
I ceded by the most learned men among those who deny 
^ the continuance of the Apostolic office in the Church, 
that the word *^ presbytery," as used by the Apostle, 
I means the office to which Timothy was ordained, and 
I not the persons who ordained him. So that the pas- 
jsage would read, with the laying on of hands, to con- 
ifer the presbytery, or presbytership, or clerical office. 
I Such is the opinion of Jerome and Ambrose, early 
'fathers in ihe Church, who hold to the Apostolic suc- 
cession, and of Calvin and Grotius, who differ — the for- 
(mer, however, viz: Calvin, on the plea of necessity, as 
he could not receive the Apostolic ministry, from cir- 
cumstances said by him to be beyond his control. 
But the scripture argument going to prove that the 
3 



26 

Apostolic office was to continue and did continue in the 
Church, is not yet exhausted. They contain evidence 
of the fad, recorded when all the Apostles, with one 
exception, had laid down their lives, as witnesses to the 
truth and power of the Gospel of the Son of God. This 
evidence is to be found in the book of the Revelations 
of St. John. The seven Churches of Asia were ad- 
dressed by the Saviour, through him. The epistles 
are directed to the Angcls of those Churches. And 
it will be no difficult matter to prove that these were 
the Apostles or Bishops of those Churches. In the 
epistle, to ihc Angf^l of the Cliurch at Ephesus, we 
have these words. Unto the Angel of the Church at 
Ephesus writc^ I know thy irorhs, and thy lahor^ and thy 
patience^ and how thou canst not bear them which are 
evil; and thou hast tried thcm^ which say they arc Apos- 
tles, and arc not, and hast found them liars, Sfc. This 
epistle was written in the year 96, and of course there 
niust have been many Pastors or Elders over the Chur- 
ches at that lime, for there were several when St. 
Paul sent for them to meet him at Miletus, and also 
when Timothy was placed over them in the year G5. 
And we cannot but conclude that many Elders and Dea- 
cons, (the inferior ministers as I have already shown) 
were added to the number by Timothy himself, as St. 
Paul had fully set before him, the qualifications such 
ministers should have. But the epistle was directed 
to the Angel of the Church at Ephesus. He was com- 
mended for what was good, and reproved for that 
which was evil in the Churches. If, however, he was 
not the chief officer, why should he be thus addressed? 
Why should the Elders and Deacons, the Pastors of 



27 

the Churches, be overlooked? The only reason that 
can be given is, that the Angfl was the Bishop of the 
Church, and he was held accountable for their conduct, 
and was either commended or reproved, as it was proper 
or improper. And you will observe that the Axgel is 
particularly commended, for having tried iliem which 
say they are Apostles^ and are not, and hath found them 
liars. But how could this be done, if he were not an 
Apostle himself? Or why should he try and examine 
the pretensions of impostors, if he had been persuaded 
that the Apostolic office was to be limited to those 
originally appointed, and were not to have successors? 
It is at once a distinct admission that at that time, in 
the year 90, there were true Apostles, who had suc- 
ceeded to the office originah'y given by the Saviour, to 
the eleven, when he breathed on them and said, receive 
ye the IloJy Ghost, as my Father hath sent me, even so 
send I you. If not, why try any one who pretended 
that he had received such an office ? 

But there are other considerations c^oins: to show the 
continuance of the Apostolic office, and that it was su- 
preme and to continue so. *• The cluirches are only 
called in the epistles, candlesticks — the Angels are 
resembled to stars, whicii give light to the candlesticks. 
'Which, as has been observed, is a very fit emblem of 
those who succeeded in the place of the Apostles, whom 
our Lord calls the lio-ht of the world, and resembles to 
candles, which being put into candlesticks, give light to 
all in the house. They are also called, as I have re- 
marked, stars, and the same title is given to our Lord 
himself, who is the great light of the world. In addi- 
tion to this, the term Angel is never given to any but 



28 

such as are placed in some high office and dignity un- 
der God. The Angels of God are the blessed spirits, 
who always Hve in his presence, and execute his com- 
mands. The Jews called their High Priest by this 
name, because they looked on him as the messenger of 
God to them.'' It is not then an uncommon mode of 
addressing those in authority ; and tlie evidence before 
us is sufficient to prove that this name was applied to 
none other than the Apostles who had been placed over 
the Churches addressed by St. John. This, as I have 
remarked, brings us down to the year 90. 

But we have strong human testimony in reference to 
this point, which at once settles the question as to the 
office (which the persons addressed as Angels,) then 
held. And it is evidence which cannot be denied; for 
we rely upon it with other testimony to prove the ca- 
non of Scripture, if it be rejected, we may at once 
give up the word of God and throw ourselves into the 
hands of infidels. Ignatius, who suifered martyrdom 
about the tenth year of Trajan, which was only four 
years after the death of St. John the Apostle — at which 
lime Ignatius had been forty yea»s the Bishop of Anti- 
och, tells us who was the Bishop addressed by St. John. 
And it is important here to learn, that Ignatius was 
made Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter to fill the vacan- 
cy occasioned by the death of Evodius. In his epistle 
to the Ephesians, bespeaks *'of Onesimus, their Bish* 
op, and exhorts all of them, presbyters and deacons, 
and private citizens, to obey him.'' Here, then, we 
have the testimony of one who had conversed with some 
of the Apostles, and must have been fully acquainted 
with their view^s in reference to the ministry and gov« 



29 

ernment of the Church. He himself, as I remarked, 
had received the Apostolic office from the hands of St. 
Peter. He tells us that Onesimus was at that time, 
viz : the period when St. John wrote his epistle to the 
Church at Ephesus, their Bishop, the chief officer in 
the Church. And not only so, but he confirms the po- 
sition already advanced, that there were inferior grades 
in the ministry — presbyters and deacons, and exhorts 
them to obey their Bishop. So that the proof is full., 
and ought to be conclusive, that the Apostolic office 
was to continue in the Church and always to be su- 
preme. 

The proof, however, does not stop here. The testi- 
mony is equally clear that Polycarp, who was cotem- 
porary with Ignatius, and the fellow disciple of St. 
John, was, at this time, the Bishop of Smyrna, one of 
the Churches addressed. The epistle is directed to 
him as the Angel. And if so, why may we not infer 
that the epistles were directed to the other Churches 
in the same manner. To the Angel of each, viz : their 
Bishop, Ignatius speaks of Polycarp as the Bishop of 
Smyrna, **and exhorts all the Church, presbyters and 
deacons, as well as laymen, to be obedient to him." 
And Irenseus, who was Polycarp's disciple, assures us 
that Polycarp was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the 
Apostles. This testimony we cannot reject, for these 
early Fathers w^ere competent and credible witnesses 
of facts, although their opinions are only to be taken as 
the opinions of fallible men. If their testimony to facts, 
as I have already observed, is rejected, it is impossible 
to prove that the book which we call the Bible, and 

3* 



so 

which we prize as the great chart given to us of God 
to guide us in our voyage through life, is true. 

I have thus brought before you the evidence going 
to show nnost clearly, that the Apostles had successors ; 
and that the office which they held, was to be given by 
those who had received it from them, down through 
the different periods of the (church. And also, that 
this office was to be supreme and the individuals to 
whom it was committed, to have the power to rule and 
govern the Church. In all this period, there is no in- 
stance to be found of any one who officiated in holy 
things without having their commission from them ; 
and we find, that the ministry consisted of three grades, 
as it did in the Church under the old dispensation, bish- 
ops, presbyters or elders, and deacons. 

And here it is proper to remark, that although the 
Apostolic office was to continue, and has continued, as 
I shall show, without one single link being broken in the 
chain which connects it to the Great Head of the 
Church, Jesus Christ, yet the name Apostle has been 
confined to the first rulers in the Church, that is the 
Apostolic age. After this age, as we learn fron'j Thco- 
dorct, one of the Fathers, the term Bishop was taken 
from the second order of ministers and appropriated 
to the first. All. therefore, that is said of Bishops in 
the New Testament, is to be regarded as belonging to 
the middle grade, who were then, and are now, desig- 
nated by the term elder or presbyter. The highest 
order in the Scriptures, is called by the word Apostle, 
but it is now and has been since the Apostolic age, de- 
signated by the term Bishop. The name, however, is 
nothing — it is the office we arc examining, and thus far, 



31 

we think, we have shown that it was to continue in the 
Church, and also as superior to the other orders of the 
ministry. 

If, however, it is urged that an equaHty of ministry 
was established by the Great Head of the Church — 
that all were to be considered equal in point of min- 
isterial rights, such as is held by Presbyterians, Con- 
gregationalists and Baptists,^ and that there was to be 
no Apostolic succession — is it not strange that it should 
have been considered so unfitted for the Church of 
Christ as to be banished from it before the close of the 
first century ] There is not a trace of it to be found. 
During all this period, I have proved from the Scrip- 
tures and from unquestionable human testimony, that 
the Apostolic office was transferred from one to anoth- 
er, and that it was supreme. That there were inferi- 
or grades in the ministry — presbyters and deacons. 
And how could such an oflice as was held by the Apos. 
ties, and afterwards by the Bishops, their successors, 
ever arise in the Church, without it had been fully 
sanctioned by the Great Head of the Church. It is im- 

*The Methodists do not hold to an equnlity of minisleriul riiihts. But yet their 
government is Pfe^l)yierian, as tlie ministerial office is conveyed h\ presbyte-s. The 
highest ffrade is called My ihe term Bishop, but they have not the Apos:olic succes- 
sion. The Rev. John AVe-iley, tlieir founder, was only a pre>l>yter of the Church 
of England. But m endeavoring to excite a grRater degree of religious feeling in 
the Church of wliich he was a meii-bcr, he led his followers furttier than he ever 
intended or detired. He died, as he himself declared, a member of the Church 
OF England. But he lived long enough to see the danger of ever departing from 
the established laws of Christ's house, Irs Church. His followers not only Jeft 
the Church, but some assumed the title of Bishoi'. To whom he thus writes — the 
letter is written to Mr. Ash'iry. "In one point, my dear brother, T am little afraid 
both ihe Doctor (CoUe) and you difler from me. I study to be little, you study to 
be great; I creep, you strut along. I foiind a school, you a college! Nay, and 
call it afier your own names ! O beware! Do not seek to be someihingl I^et me 
be nothing, and Christ be all in all. One instance of this your greatness, has giv- 
en me great concern. How can you, how dare you sulTer yourself to be called a 
Bishop. I shudder, I start ai the very thought. Men may call me a knave, or a 
fool, a rascil, a scoundrel, and J am content, Imt they shall never, by my consent, 
call me a Bishop ! For my snke, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to 
this. Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Metbodists know their 
calling belter." 

He recognized, as you ])erce'tvc, the necessity for *'the Bisho^s^^ to transfer such 
fin office, as they alone were the successors of the Aposiles. 



32 

possible. Men are too jealous of iheir rights ever to 
have yielded to such an assumption of power without 
a struggle. And if so, where is the evidence of any 
opposition on their part ] The word of God is silent — 
all history is silent. And who could have been the 
usurper 1 We might as well expect that history would 
be silent in reference to our own civil revolution, as to 
expect silence in so remarkable and complete an eccle- 
siastical revolution as must have taken place when 
Bishops were made the supreme rulers of the Church. 
It cannot be. 

But, I ask your attention a little longer, to the evi- 
dence which is furnished from the early records of the 
Church, to prove that the Apostles had successors, viz: 
the Bishops, and that this succession was preserved in 
all the Churches of which we have any account. I 
quote again from Ignatius, of whom we have spoken, 
and who had been the Bishop of Antioch thirty-six 
years, when St. John died. In his epistles, which arc 
now to be found entire, and which were written a short 
time bclorc his martyrdom, there is scarcely any duty 
so earnestly ))rcssed, and so often inculcated, as that 
private christians should be obedient to their pastors, 
and the presbyters and deacons to their Bishops. 

In his epistle to the Magnesians, he writes, ** seeing 
then I have been judged worthy^ to see you, by Da- 
mas, your most excellent Bishop ; and by your very 
worthy Presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and by 
my fellow servant Sotio, the Deacon, in whom I re- 
joice, forasmuch as he is subject unto his Bishop as 
to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the 
law of Jesus Christ ; I determined to write unto you. 



33 

Wherefore it will become you also not to use your 
Bishop too familiarly upon the account of his youth, 
but to yield all reverence to him according to the pow- 
er of God the Father ; as also I perceive that your 
holy presbyters do ; not considering his age, which 
indeed to appearance, is young, but as becomes those 
who are prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather 
not to him, but to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
the Bishop of us all." Again, he says : ** I exhort you 
that ye study to do all things in a divine concord ; 
your Bishop presiding in the place of God, your pies- 
byters in the place of the council of the Apostles ; 
and your deacons most dear to me, being intrusted 
with the ministry of Jesus Christ." And in his epis- 
tle to the Philadelphians, he says : *^ But the Spirit 
spake, saying in this wise ; do nothing without the 
Bishop ; keep your bodies as the temples of God ; love 
unity ; flee disunion ; be the followers of Christ, as he 
was of his Father. I, therefore, did as became me, as 
a man composed to unity. For where there is divi- 
sion and wrath, God dwelleth not. But the Lord for- 
gives all that repent, if they return to the unity of God, 
and to the council of the Bishop." Again, in his epis- 
tle to the Trallians, he says : *' Let nothing by any 
means be done without the Bishop, even as ye now 
practice— subject yourselves to the college of presby- 
ters, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, and let the 
deacons, who are the mystery of Jesus Christ, study 
to please all men, for they are not deacons of meats 
and drinks, but ministers of God's Church." And in 
his epistle to the Ephesians, he says : ** Let no man 
be deceived ; whoever is without the altar, is depri- 



34 

ved of the bread of God. Let us beware of opposing 
the Bishop, that we may be subject lo God/' And 
again, he speaks of Bishops settled to the ends of the 
world. And in his epistle lo the Church of Smyrna, 
he says : " Let no man do any thing which concerns 
the Church, without the Bishop. Let that cucharisl 
be accounted valid, which is ordered by the Bishop, 
or one whom he appoints. Where the Bishop appears, 
there let the people be. even as where Christ is, there 
is the Catholic Church. Without the Bishop, it is nei- 
ther lawful to baptize, nor to celebrate the feast of 
charity, but that which he approves, is well pleasing 
to God.'' And again : -'It is well to know God, and 
the Bishop. lie that knows the Bishop, is honored of 
God.^' 

I have thus presented a small j)art of the evidence 
which this Father and martyr, furnishes. This testi- 
mony must bo considered valuable, inasmuch as he 
had many opportunities of seeing and conversing with 
some of the Apostles of our blessed Lord, especially 
with St. Peter and St. John. You will perceive that 
he insists upon the fact, that the Bishop is Su[)reme as 
it regards power and rights in the (church. Nor does 
he do this, as if any one disputed it, or supposed that 
any other arrangement could be proper in the Church. 
He mentions it as a thing acknowledged by all. And 
you also find that he constantly speaks of the other or- 
ders in the ministr}^ presbyters and deacons, as inferi- 
or to the Bishop. Now% how such testimony could 
be given, and such an arrangement always insisted up- 
on, without it was in accordance with the views of 
the Apostles, who were guided by the Spirit of God, 



35 

and with whose views Ignatius nnust have been fully 
acquainted, I am at a loss to know. 

But, I pass to the next witness, Irenaeus, who was 
the disciple of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Irenaeus 
was first a presbyter, and afterwards the Bishop of 
Lyons. He makes the succession of Bishops an argu- 
ment against the heretics, who crept into the Church 
in that age, and propounds it as the surest way to or- 
thodoxy in the christian faith, to follow those who de- 
scended in a direct line of succession from the Apos- 
tles. *' We, he says, can reckon up those whom the 
Apostles ordained to be Bishops in the several Church- 
es, and who they were that succeeded them down to 
our time. And had the Apostles known any hidden 
mysteries which they imparted to none but the per- 
fect, (as the heretics pretend,) they would have com- 
mitted them to those men, to whom they committed 
the Churches themselves ; for they desired to have 
those in all things perfect and unreprovable, whom they 
left to be their successors, and to whom they commit- 
ted their ow-n Aposiolic authority.*' lie then adds, 
^' that because it would be endless to enumerate the 
succession of Bishops in all the Churches, he would in- 
stance in that of Rome." In which he tells us, that 
Linus was ordained the first Bishop by St. Peter and 
St. Paul. The next was Anacletus, after him Clem- 
ens, and so on to Eleutherius, who was the twelfth 
from the Apostles, and filled the Episcopal chair when 
Irenaeus wrote. 

Here is testimony full and complete, from one who 
was the disciple of Polycarp, and must have often heard 
the latter speak of the Apostles, and the mode prescri- 



96 

bed by them, for the government of the Church. It is 
in itself conclusive. For Ircna3us not only asserts the 
fact that the Bishops were the successors of tlie Apos- 
tles, but also that he had at that time a correct list of 
all who had succeeded to that office in all the Churches 
from the time in which the Apostles lived, down to his 
own day. 

I also quote from the writings of Ilegesippus, who 
lived at the same time with Irena?us, who traveled 
through a great part of the world on purpose to learn 
the doctrine and tradition, left by the Apostles in the 
Churches which they founded, lie says, ** he had con- 
versed with many Bishops, and received the same doc- 
trine from them all. One of these, whom he mentions 
by name, was Primus, Bishop of Corinth. Another was 
Anicetus, whom he found Bishop of Rome on his arri- 
val there, at wliich time Eleutherius was his deacon. 
After Anicetus, Soter was Bishop of Rome, and Soter 
was succeeded by Eleutherius. He also states, that 
Simeon, the son of Cleophas, being of our Lord's fami- 
ly, succeeded James in the Bishopric of Jerusalem. 
And in every succession, he says, and in every city, 
the same doctrine is received, which was taught by the 
law, the prophets, and our Lord.'' 

Here then we have Irenaius and Hegesippus, living 
at the same time, in dilTcrcnt parts of the world, testi- 
fying that the Apostles had successors, and that there 
were Bishops in the diflercnt Churches. And not only 
so, but actually tracing their succession from one to 
another. 

This succession you will find brought down to the 
council of Nice, in the year 325, by Eusebius in hisec- 



87 

clesiaslical history. No link is broken in the chain 
which connects the Bishops with the Apostles, and of 
course with Christ. Another witness, who lived in this 
age, is Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus. In a letter ad- 
dressed to the Bishop of Rome about the time of keeping 
Easter, part of which you will find in Eusebius, he ap- 
peals to the tradition of former Bishops and martyrs, 
and the practice of those who lived in his own time. 
Among others, he mentions Polycarp, Bishop of Smyr- 
na and martyr — Sagaris, Bishop of Eaodicea and mar- 
ter — seven Bishops of his own kindred, and great mul- 
titudes of Bishops w^ho assembled with him to consult 
about the time of Easter. And he says, that when he 
wrote this epistle, he had been G5 years a christian. 
So that here is a witness beyond exception, who lived 
the greatest part of the next age after the death of the 
Apostles, testifying that Bishops were settled in all the 
Churches. 

Clemens, Bishop of Alexandria, also lived at this time. 
He was considered one of the most learned men of that 
age, and he speaks of the ministry existing in three or- 
ders, of which the Bishop was supreme. Speaking of 
Matthias, he says, *Mhat though he was not elected by 
our Lord with the rest of the Apostles, yet having de- 
served to be advanced to that office, he was substitu- 
ted in Judas' place. And even now, he says, they who 
live up to the perfect rule of the gospel, may be taken 
into the number of the Apostles. He is indeed a dea- 
con and minister of the divine w^ill, and he is a presby- 
ter of the Church, who does both practice and leach 
what our Lord has prescribed.'' And again, he says, 
"that St. John, the Apostle, returning from Patmos, 
4 



38 

the place of his banishment, to Ephesus, went about 
the neighboring nations, and in some places ordained 
Bishops — in others established Churches, and in others, 
set apart such for the Clergy, as were pointed out to 
him by the Spirit." 

I might go on and bring proof after proof from these 
early witnesses, but I will conclude this part of the sub- 
ject by a quotation from the writings of the celebrated 
Tertullian, a presbyter, who lived at the end of the 
second and commencement of the third century. He 
says, '* the chief or high priest, who is the Bishop, has 
the right of giving (baptism) and after him, the pres- 
byters and deacons, but not without the Bishop's au- 
thority, on account of the honor of the Church, which 
being preserved, peace is secured/' No language could 
be stronger going to show the superior office and power 
of a Bishop, and also that such an office was held in 
his day. And you will observe in all the writings of 
the early fathers, there is not the slightest allusion 
made to any superiority among the Bishops themselves. 
They were all equal. It was at a much later period, 
when the Bishop of Rome endeavored to gain the su- 
premacy. 

I have now endeavored to bring this subject before 
you, in as clear and condensed a manner as possible. 
And in doing so, I have shown that the Apostles re- 
ceived full power to rule and govern the Church, from 
Christ — that they, very early transferred that power 
to others, and that the office was continued in the 
Church. That it was supreme. And that they estab- 
lished two inferior grades in the ministry, to which was 
given limited powers, derived entirely from the Apos- 



lies, and the Bishops, their successors. How any one 
can resist the testinnony, I know not. And what is 
still more singular, the opponents of the Apostolic suc- 
cession will refer to the very Fathers, whose testimony 
I have quoted, and depend upon them to establish the 
truth of the word of God, and many other doctrines, 
but reject their testimony when presented to establish 
one of the most important of all truths — the regular 
succession of the Aposlolic ministry. 

Having then established the position under conside- 
ration, the question is naturally presented, whether we 
have this ministry. If not, we have no right w^hatever 
to perform the duty before us — of giving part of that 
ministry to others. But God be thanked, that question 
can readily be answ^ered. We can trace up our min* 
istry much further than the reformation. We go back 
to the days of the Apostles, and find that they early 
obeyed the command of Christ, go ye into all the world, 
and preach the Gospel to ex^ery creature. This gospel 
was early carried to that Island now known as Great 
Britain. It is generally supposed that St. Paul w^as 
the first messenger of truth who visited it. And this 
opinion was held at a very early period. The testi- 
! mony to this fact was first given by Clement Romanus, 
I He says, that the Apostle Paul *' traveled to the utmost 
I bounds of the west,'' an expression, according to Theo- 
doret used, to denote the British Islands. Clement 
I gave this testimony as early as the year 70. To the 
' like effect is the testimony of Jerome and Theodoret. 
At all events, the proof is most ample to show that 
I Christianity w^as early introduced into these Islands. 
I And the first records of the Church that was estab- 



4& 

lished there, show that it was organized as all the other 
Churches were, by the Apostles, and in three orders, 
with the Bishop as supreme. That the succession 
was carried there by St. Paul and continued, as you 
will see, uninterruptedly in the Church. 

As early as the year 314, we have an account of the 
council of Aries, and among those assembled, there 
were several Bishops from Britain. Also, in the coun- 
cil at Sardica, in the year 347, and at the council of 
Ariminium, in the year 359. This is important testi- 
mony, going to show the early organization of the 
Church in Britain, and also that they had the true suc- 
cession of iho ministry, and that the Bishops, (as the 
Apostles,) were the supreme rulers in the Church. And 
also, that there was no superiority among the Bishops 
themselves. That at this period, no supremacy was 
claimed by, or granted to, the Bishop of Home. 

And it will enable us to answer satisfactorily the 
question often asked, did your Bishops, viz: the Bishops 
of the Episcopal Church, receive their succession from 
the Roman Catholic Church ! We answer unhesita- 
tingly, no. The old British Church from which we 
descend, existed several hundred years in all her pu- 
rity of doctrine, worship and ministry, before she was 
brought under foreign ecclesiastical power. But even 
if we had received our ministry through that source, it 
could do us no harm. For that Church, and many of 
her eloquent defenders, I have great respect. For, 
with all her errors, she has the regular succession of 
the ministry, and is a part of the Catholic Church. 
And it is not the way to remove those errors, to de- 
nounce and abuse her priesthood, and hold her up to 



41 

scorn and derision. Oh no. I would rather speak of 
her in kindness — ihank her for the good she nnay have 
accomph'shed in preserving the word of God — and tell 
her of her faults — of her departure from the old Catho- 
lic Church — and endeavor to persuade her to give up 
the commandments of men, and come back to the un- 
corrupted Church of Christ. I pray ardently for this 
happy period to arrive, when she will give up her er- 
rors, and come with all her untiring energy — her pa- 
tience under trial — and her self-sacrificing and self-de- 
nying priesthood, and unite in the great work of bring- 
ing the scattered sheep of Christ, into one fold, under 
one Shepherd, Jesus Christ, the Lord. 

The old British Church then, was not established by, 
nor placed under any foreign ecclesiastical power. 
She was independent of all other Churches. The on- 
ly preference ever given to any Church in the early 
periods, was to the Church at Jerusalem. And this 
was only the preference of respect, from its being 
the place where the Great Head of the Church offered 
up himself a sacrifice for the sins of the world. She 
was the Mother Church. And we find this respect 
early shown to her, for in the first council of the Apos- 
tles, her Bishop, James, presided and delivered the 
opinion of that body,* 

In all the early councils you can easily see that 
there was no spiritual supremacy claimed or admitted. 
Even Gregory the Great, of Rome, when the Bishop 
of Constantinople attempted to maintain such a claim, 
used the following language: ** Whoever claims 

THE UNIVERSAL EPISCOPATE IS THE FORERUNNER OF 

* See 15th chap. Acts of the Apostles. 

4# 



43 

Antichriht/^ Gregory Magn* tlpist,, Let. G. Epist, 
30. 

It was not until the year 590, that the attempt was 
made to bring the Catholic Church of Britain under the 
Roman Bishop. Auguslin, the monk, was sent to Bri- 
tain for this purpose — and shortly after his arriva), 
through the aid of Elhelbert, a meeting of the Clergy 
of the British Church was held at a place known af- 
terwards as Augustin's Oak. ''^ At the different n>eet- 
ings held, there were present, the Arch-bishop of Cam- 
bria, seven Bishops, and a number of the other British 
clergy. Augustin wished them to submit to the Bishop 
of Rome, and con^e under his jurisdiction — to conform 
to the Romish custom of keeping Easter — to use the 
Romish forms and ceremonies in the ministration of 
baptism, and to join the Romish missionaries in preach- 
ing to the Sr.xons." The rccjucst was startling to the 
Bishops of the British Church, and was rejected in the 
strong and decided language presented by the good 
Dimoth, of Bangor.* But resistance was vain — the 
British Church, the true Catholic Church, of which the 
Episcopal Church is a part, was forced, by the civif 
authority, into submission, and by degrees lost her in- 
dependence. And these facts are in accordance witb 
the views of that eminent jurist, Sir William Black- 
stone. He says in his commentaries, [B, 4, Ch. 8,) 
under the Anglo-Saxon dynasty, the island was com- 

*nc it known and wiihoiif douht tmlo you. tliat wc :!ll arc, ani every onr of 
OS, Qijcdicai iiiiJ su!)jects lo il)c Chiircli ofGu.-l, and lo ihc Pope of Rome, arul to 
every gotlly Chrinli'in, to love every one In his dcj^ree of perf»*ci trliariiy, and to 
help every one of tlietn l.y word ami i\G^d, to i:e Uc children of Goi! and oihcr 
obedience than thi-', I do not know to I.e due to him whom yo;i name lo he Popc^ 
nor lo \\\e father of fathers, lo be elainio i and dcm-mde I. And (his <>f>e li'*nce wo 
are readv m give, and to pay lo him, i nd lo every cfirisijan. continually. Beaidetf, 
we Jire under the {lovernment of ihe Uishop of K:'.erIeon-u|.oii-Uske, wlio is to 
over-see undf^r Ciod f>ver us, lo caur>e us to kee[) the way spiritual, —/V^r** 
Church HiHory of Britain, pp. SO, 00— wLcre soc origin; 1. 



49 

paratively independent, and was more in conimunioii 
with, than subjection to, the Italian Pontiff; but the 
Nornnan line of monarchs, after William the Conquer- 
er, submitted to the dictation of the Popes, and concc-* 
ded one point after another, until the nation found it- 
self completely under the foot of a foreign Bishop.'' 

Thus the Church continued, until she had the power 
of throwing off the foreign yoke imposed upon her. 
This power was exercised in the sixteenth century ; 
and her Bishops, Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, who 
had the regular Apostolic succession, abandoned the 
errors introduced into her bosom, and brought out from 
the rubbish of nges, the old British (Church of St. Paul, 
the TRUE Catholic Ckurch, which ever since, like the 
polar star, has guided many a tempest-tost soul, to the 
haven of eternal rest. They did not leave the Church, 
or establish a new Church, they continued in it, and 
diffused throughout every part of it, the life and light 
of the gospel of ihe Son of God. But those who clung 
to the Bishop of Rome, set up another Church — it is 
true having an Apostolic ministry, but in a state of 
schism. From the former Church we received our 
ministry. 

At the period of our civil revolution, the Episcopal 
Church in the colonies, was under the care of the Bish- 
op of London. An ecclesiastical revolution also took 
place, and the Church renounced all foreign jurisdiction. 
Of course the Church in America w^as left without a 
Bishop, and without the Apostolic succession. But 
God's promise 'was still recorded — the Church of Christ 
could not be destroyed. Accordingly, the Rev. Samuel 
Seabury, an eloquent defender of the faith, early re- 



44 

ceived the Apostolic office, iVom ihe Church in Scot- 
land — and that eminent servant ot* Christ, William 
White, then a presbyter, in Pennsylvania — and Samuel 
Provoost, a presbyter of New York, repaired to the 
mother Church in England, and received from the hands 
of her Bishops, the Apostolic succession — and with 
James Madison, of Virginia, who also received the 
Apostolic office from the English Church, have con- 
tinued it down through the diffierent Bishops since con- 
secrated to that olRco — and now througliout the length 
and breadth of the land, the gospel of Christ is proclaim- 
ed through the Church, and by an Apostolic ministry. 

Happy people then arc we, to have this ministry. 
For amidst all the agitations of the christian world, the 
Church has stood firm and decided — and not one of her 
Bishops has been carried away from the simplicity of 
the faith as it is in Christ. God grant that she may so 
continue — that in all the storms and tempests which 
are beating around her, she may, like the Ark of olden 
days, a beautiful type of the church, ride safely over eve- 
ry tossing wave, until she quietly rests on Mount Zion, 
carrying back the Jew, long an exile from his home, 
with his harp tuned and singing the song of praise and 
gladness — and the Gentile — rejoicing, that Christ hath 
broken down the middle wall of partition, and united 
in the bonds of christian brotherhood, the whole na- 
tions of the earth. Hasten on, happy, happy day of 
the Lord. 

But, I have left, only a short space to notice the 
powers and duties of the successors of the Apostles. 
These, however, I have fully noticed on former occa- 
sions. I will, therefore, be brief. They are to ordain 



45 

presbyters and deacons, and send them forth to preach 
the unsearchable riches of Christ. For as St. Paul 
says: *^ How shall they believe in him of whom they have 
not heard ? Jlnd how shall they hear without a preacher ? 
And how shall they j)reach, except they be sent ? They 
are to rule and govern the Church, and be ready, with 
all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the 
Church, all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to 
God's word, and so minister discipline that they forget 
not mercy. 

They are to confirm all who have repented and been 
made disciples through the w^ashing of regeneration, 
(baptism,) by laying their hands upon them, and invo- 
king the aid of the Holy Spirit, that they may continue 
Christ's faithful soldiers and servants, to their lives' end, 
as St. Peter and St. Paul did upon the disciples in Sa- 
maria. 

They are to preach the word, as well as to send 
others to preach, and to do it without fearing the face 
of man. The whole truth of God is to be made known — 
the riches of His mercy in Christ, as well as his deter- 
mination to punish for unrepented sin — heaven is to be 
presented with all its joys, as the reward of the faith- 
ful — and hell with all its woes, as the lot of the disobe- 
dient. 

They are to visit the sick, and comfort the dying 

believer, and hold up to the sinner, even struggling in 

I the agonies of death, the invitations of mercy. These 

! duties (with the exception of ordination, confirmation, 
and ruling the Church, &c.,) are common with all the 
I orders in the ministry. It is also the duty of thepres- 
' byter and deacon, to perform them with an eye sin- 



46 

gle to the glory of God. And especially they are to 
tell men, that ii is only through this ministry that par- 
don and acceptance with God. can be made known. 
Not that there is any power in the ministry to forgive 
sin, but tfiey who hold this office, are the constituted 
agents, *^ to pronounce and declare to His people, being 
penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins.'' 
Without such a declaration on the part of the ministry, 
there is no tangible evidence of pardon. The repenting 
sinner who has come to Christ by faith, may be accept- 
ed long before this act ; but this act is the tangible evi- 
dence communicated through the embassadors of Christ. 

If not, what is the use of the ministry ? They are the 
agents of Christ, and as such, are to make known the 
terms of reconciliation and pardon lo sinners; and on 
the supposition that these terms have been fulfilled, 
they are also to declare that they have been pardoned 
and accepted of God. Such a view of this subject 
places the ministry where Christ placed it. and holds 
out to repenting sinners, the strong encouragement to 
come to the minister of Jesus, not as a mere hireling em- 
])loyed to perform certain specific duties, but as his 
agent, authorized to tell him, his sins are forgiven. How 
holy the office ! and what weight of responsibility is 
thrown upon a minister of Christ. 

My beloved brother,"^' you have already received a 
part of this office, and are about to be advanced to a 
higher grade, ** having purchased to yourself a good 
degree." You already know some of the anxieties and 
cares connected with the ministerial office. But I bless 
God that with these you have had strong evidence that 

*Thc Kev. Montgomery Schuyler. 



47 

you have not labored in vain. That he has vouch- 
safed his blessing upon your efforts, and given you some 
seals of your ministry. But my beloved brother, your 
work is only begun — the fields are white to the har- 
vest — souls are perishing around you, and it becomes 
you to put on the whole armor of God, that you may 
be able successfully to contend against the evil one. 
Look first to yourself — cultivate a close intercourse 
with God — have the blessed Saviour before you in all 
his loveliness, and in all his efforts to save men — and 
lean continually upon the Spirit of God to hold you up, 
as well as to prepare you for the duties of your office. 
Stand boldly, yet meekly before men — and proclaim 
your message. Be mild — courteous — firm — decided — 
above all, preach Jesus, 

My beloved friends,"^ you are now about to receive 
the lowest part in this ministry, yet it is an honorable 
part. It will enable you, (by the permission of your 
Bishop,) to preach the gospel, and admit disciples into 
the school of Christ. The same advice w^hich I have 
given to the beloved brother beside you, I would also 
give to you. But as you have not had any experience 
in the ministry, I would add a few cautions with it.. 
The times in which we live are exciting, and you have 
need of much prudence and care, lest you may be 
drawn away from the appropriate duties of the minis- 
try. Many suppose, and many too of those who are 
admitted into the ministr3% that the way to be useful is 
to join heart and hand in all those societies which are 
formed by men for benevolent purposes. Indeed, a 
failure to do so, most generally brings upon all who re- 

*Mr. Sabin Hougli and Mr. Edwin Hodgkin. 



48 

fuse to join such societies, reproach and oftentimes 
scorn. Few have the moral courage to keep aloof, and 
follow the plans which Christ has given for the refor- 
mation of men. They let go the gospel, and depend 
upon human efforts, to dry up the desolating streams 
of vice. Now, my brclhen, I ask you not to oppose the 
efforts of men to put down any vice, God forbid I I 
would rather tell you to bid ihcm God speed. But I 
want you to remember that you arc always to be min- 
isters of Christ. That he has instituted a great socie- 
ty, into which he invites all of human kind — the church. 
That the means which lie has revealed to promote 
their reformation, not only of the outer, but the inner 
man, and fit ihem for becoming worthy members of this 
Church, is His Gospel. 

This is to be your means — and I would advise you, 
as you desire success in winning souls lo Christ, and 
value your future peace and influence among men. lo 
keep aloof from every voluntary society. In doing 
this, you are not to oppose any benevolent effort of 
men, but only to show, tiiat wherever you go, and 
wherever found, you go and are found ready, to preach 
Jesus. This cannot be done in these societies. A min- 
ister, thcrcfoie, loses his influence — becomes seculari- 
zed, and oftentimes excited, in a manner unworthy of 
his character and callinnr, and soon fails in the perfor- 
mance of the appropriate duties of his oflice. The re- 
ligious world is full of such instances, and I would 
therefore, most aflectionately warn you, and beseech 
you to be the more diligent in preaching the truth as 
it is in Christ. 

May God give you strength of mind and body to fit 



49 

you for the arduous duties of the ministry, and at Jast 
give you the happy reward promised to all those who 
turn many to righteousness — to shine as the stars for- 
ever, and ever. 



'* I \voiild to God it lav in me to restore the ;:'ovcrn 
inenl of JJishops. For I sec what manner of Church 
we shall have, the ecclesiastical polity being dissolved. 
I do sec that hereafter will grow up a greater TvKAit- 
Nv in the CiuTRrii, than tliero ever was before." 

Mklanctiion. 



APPENDIX. 



It is sometimes urged by persons, who deny the 
ApostoHc succession, and who are unable to meet the 
Scripture argument, clearly proving that it was estab- 
lished by the Saviour himself, that such a government 
is monarchical, and unsuited to the genius of our free 
institutions. To persons who are in the habit of exa- 
mining such subjects and forming their own opinions, it 
would be unnecessary to add a word to refute an as- 
sertion so utterly unfounded and at variance w^ith the 

I truth. But lest such appeals, (worthy only of religious 
demagogues,) to popular prejudices, should blind the 
minds of some honest inquirers after truth, 1 would 
very briefly show the beautiful analogy which exists 
between the ecclesiastical institutions of the Protestant 

I Episcopal Church of the United States, and the civil 

' institutions of the United States. 

At the time of our civil revolution, the Church, as 

] is well known, separated herself entirely from the ju- 
risdiction of a foreign Bishop, and declared her inde- 

I pendence; but she never could forget that^ **she is in- 

j debted, under God, to the English Church, for her first 

I foundation, and a long continuance of nursing care and 

j -protection.^' 

j ♦ Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, 



62 

Having received llie Apostolic succession from ihis 
Church, by which she could increase her ministry, and 
extend her influence, her first efiorts were made to 
conform her whole human organization and legislation 
to that adopted and followed by the people of this coun- 
try in refeience to their civil government. The con- 
sequence was, that the government of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States, became truly 
republican in its character, as we will hereafter see, 
and in which I have no hesitation in saying, that the 
rights of the people are better secured, than in any 
other ecclesiastical organization; for there are no per- 
manent off^icers, so far as the Laity are concerned, but 
fresh representatives are yearly selected by the people, 
and have a voice in all her legislation. 

But I will present the analogy to our civil govern- 
ment: 

In both, the power of government resides primarily 
in the whole people. 

In both, the forms of government are representative; 
in the Church, however, there are no limitations in the 
application of the principle of universal suffrage. 

The parish meetings, and the town or district elec- 
tions, are analogous. 

The parish vestries, and the select men or common 
councils of the towns or cities, are analogous. 

The union of parishes into dioceses, and the union of 
towns or counties into states, are analogous. 

The independence of the several dioceses, and iho 
independence of the several states, are analogous. 

The union of the several dioceses into one general 



53 

convention, and the union of the several states into one 
general government, are analogous. 

The Diocesan conventions, with their secretaries, 
and the slate legislatures with their secretaries, are 
analogous. 

The representation in the Diocesan conventions, and 
the representation in the state legislatures, from the 
people DIRECTLY, are analogous. 

The general convention of the United Dioceses, and 
the general congress of the United States, are analo- 
gous. The house of Bishops, in the former, corres- 
ponding to the senate in the latter, and the house of 
clerical and lay deputies, in the former, corresponding 
to the house of representatives in the latter. 

But sufficient proof is here given to show how scru- 
pulously careful the Church has been to guard the 
rights, as well as secure them, of every member of her 
fold. The poorest member has an equal voice in her 
councils with the most wealthy and influential, and no 
law is imposed upon any, without their own consent. 



M7 7 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

ml homson Parx Dnve 
Cranberry Townsh^j PA I606r 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 673 543 5 



[LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
'lilfiiPiFiiiiiii'i 1111111' 
■I'll I III III I III III II Hi in 

029 787 265 5 






